The tribunal ruled that section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner believes further enquiry was possible. Unless the order is unsustainable in law, revision on alleged inadequate enquiry is impermissible.
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
The tribunal held that when the assessment order is remanded for de-novo adjudication, the very basis for penalty ceases to exist. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) become unsustainable.
The tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10BB is only a procedural lapse and not a substantive bar to exemption. Where the audit report was available before processing, denial of section 11 exemption was unsustainable.
The tribunal held that land registered in an individual’s name but fully paid by a society amounts to receipt of property without consideration. Such benefit is taxable as income under section 56(2)(vii).
The tribunal ruled that rejecting books and estimating profits bars further item-wise disallowances. Authorities cannot “blow hot and cold” by disallowing expenses from the same rejected records.
The tribunal held that sending notices through email despite the assessee expressly opting for physical service constituted sufficient cause for delay. Procedural lapses by tax authorities cannot deprive an assessee of the right to be heard.
The tribunal ruled that lack of digital literacy and non-receipt of electronic orders constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. A liberal approach was adopted to ensure substantial justice, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
he tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless authority violate the mandatory faceless assessment framework. Such jurisdictional defects render the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
