The tribunal held that the State Electricity Board consumer tariff of ₹6.62/unit was the valid internal CUP for captive power transfer. Rejecting comparisons with generating companies, it ruled that no downward adjustment was required. The key takeaway is that actual SEB purchase rates can reliably determine market value for 80IA claims.
Tribunal held that the AO had validly recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee’s 14A working and rightly invoked Rule 8D, confirming interest disallowance while remanding only the investment-averaging computation for Vireet-based recalculation.
This case addressed the scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration Act regarding the interest awarded in a commercial dispute. The Court found no perversity in the Arbitrator’s decision to award the contractual 24% rate, rejecting the borrower’s claims under the outdated Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The ruling emphasizes that the Arbitration Act framework overrides State usury laws for NBFC lending and bars courts from reopening contractual rates.
The PCIT held the AO’s assessment under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, directing fresh verification of various deductions. The assessee argued all claims were correctly examined, questioning the jurisdiction of section 263.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine or reason with respect to substantial documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure proper evaluation of bank statements, ledger entries, and receipts.
The ITAT determined that the tax department failed to adhere to the statutory deadline for issuing a Section 148 notice, making the reassessment jurisdiction invalid from the start. The ruling confirms that strict adherence to the extended limitation period is mandatory, and failure to comply results in the entire reassessment being quashed.
The Tribunal examined the validity of assessments initiated under Section 153C where the Assessing Officer recorded a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years. Following binding precedents, the Tribunal held that consolidated satisfaction is a fatal jurisdictional error and quashed the 153C assessments entirely.
The Tribunal noted that the cash was seized in a case involving narcotics, making the assessees story of property-related pooling of funds implausible. With no credible corroboration and significant inconsistencies, the addition under section 69A was upheld. The ruling stresses that factual context can outweigh self-serving explanations.
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
Tribunal remands the matter after finding that bank records showing cash withdrawals were not examined. The key takeaway is that cash-in-hand cant be treated as unexplained without proper factual verification.
