The tribunal ruled that buying property through a court-supervised auction does not shield a transaction from benami law. Where the lender’s creditworthiness and real source of funds are unproven, provisional attachment is valid.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment beyond three years was valid when the assessed escaped income was only ₹13.98 lakh. It held that failure to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold under section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that non-deliberate delay caused by administrative difficulties should not bar access to justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the appeal was revived for merit-based adjudication.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The dispute involved penalties on bank interest earned by a mutual entity prior to a change in law. The Tribunal held that a bona fide claim based on settled law cannot be treated as concealment, warranting deletion of penalties.
The ITAT held that cancellation of provisional registration merely for non-compliance with notices is unsustainable when lapses are not deliberate. The case was remanded to allow the applicant a fair opportunity to establish genuineness of activities.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
