The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹4.41 crore addition where the assessment relied only on a survey statement later retracted. It ruled that, without independent evidence, such admissions and loose papers cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The issue was whether mutual fund dividend could be taxed as share dividend due to return-form limitations. The Tribunal held that section 115BBDA applies only to dividends from domestic companies, not mutual funds.
The issue was whether share sale proceeds could be taxed as unexplained based on general investigation reports. The Tribunal held that without concrete evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, additions cannot survive.
The issue was whether penalty could be sustained when the notice alleged under-reporting but the order punished misreporting. The Tribunal held such variance impermissible, rendering the penalty void.
The issue was whether LTCG could be taxed in a search assessment without incriminating evidence for the year. The Tribunal held that, absent such material, additions under section 153A are unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld revision since business expenses were within limited scrutiny and education cess deduction was not verified. The key takeaway is that lack of enquiry on a covered issue makes the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The assessing officer estimated commission income by assuming investments were accommodation entries. The tribunal confirmed that additions based on assumptions, without concrete evidence, are legally unsustainable.
The key issue was whether approval of an IBC resolution plan automatically wipes out the right to carry forward business losses. The Tribunal held that such rights survive and must be examined under the Income-tax Act, not dismissed as infructuous.
The core issue was whether an assessment can survive when DRP directions are disregarded. The Tribunal held that failure to follow binding DRP instructions renders the assessment void ab initio.
