The Tribunal held that unfinished properties classified as work-in-progress cannot be subjected to notional rent under section 23. Since construction was incomplete, the addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot examine issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without approval. Since total deposits were assessed instead of only demonetization deposits, the addition was invalid and deleted.
The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid business decision that enabled higher sale consideration.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. It held that re-examining already scrutinized facts does not justify reopening under section 147.
The appeal involved a legal challenge regarding absence of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that failure to adjudicate this issue required fresh consideration and remanded the matter.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of an irrevocability clause in the trust deed is not sufficient to reject registration. It relied on High Court precedent to set aside the order. The decision protects trusts from technical rejection.
Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
The ruling held that telecom voice termination services do not constitute royalty as no secret process or intellectual property is involved. Such receipts are treated as business profits and are not taxable in India without a permanent establishment.
The issue involved levy of late fees on TDS returns processed before statutory amendment. The Tribunal held that absence of enabling provision made such levy invalid and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that valuation without giving the assessee an opportunity to object violates natural justice. It remanded the matter for fresh DVO assessment. The ruling stresses procedural compliance in valuation cases.
