The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the statutory limitation period were invalid. Following the Supreme Courts ruling on reassessment timelines, the entire reopening and resulting additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on third-party search material without corroboration is unsustainable. With payments proved through banking channels, the cash allegation failed.
The Tribunal examined whether a creditor’s unilateral write-off automatically results in cessation of liability for the assessee. It held that such write-off requires factual verification and cannot, by itself, trigger addition under section 41(1).
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
Recognising the role of a Kaccha Arhtia, the Tribunal ruled that only commission constitutes income. TDS deducted on gross receipts belonging to farmers still entitles the agent to full credit.
The Tribunal examined whether a large consultancy payment was allowable when the assessee failed to establish its genuineness and business necessity. It upheld the disallowance, holding that mere claims without credible evidence cannot justify deduction of professional expenses.
The assessing authority made a large addition without explaining its nature or legal basis. The Tribunal ruled that such a cryptic order cannot stand and set aside the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the transfer pricing adjustment was based on unexplained margin calculations. A fresh working was directed to ensure accurate benchmarking of international transactions.
The Supreme Court held that purchasers who acquire property during pending litigation are bound by the decree and cannot obstruct execution of possession. Transfers made pendente lite remain subservient to the final decree and do not create independent rights against the decree holder.
The Tribunal held that reopening completed scrutiny assessments beyond four years is invalid when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. The key takeaway is that Section 147’s first proviso is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
