The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory duties under Sections 250(4) and 250(6). The dismissal on delay alone was held improper, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be used to penalize deduction under an incorrect TDS provision when tax was actually deducted. The expenditure disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal observed that similar deductions were allowed in earlier scrutiny assessments. Finding no error in the Assessing Officer’s view, it annulled the revision proceedings.
Relying on CBDT instructions and precedent, the Tribunal ruled that approval for reopening must come from the CCIT. Approval by PCIT rendered the notice and assessment unsustainable.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is determined on an estimated basis. In absence of clear concealment, the Rs.5.41 lakh penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that CPC could not make prima facie adjustments denying Section 80P deduction before the Finance Act, 2021 amendment. The disallowance made in 2019 was held invalid and deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that under the pre-amended law, accumulated income could be applied within five years or the immediately following year. Utilization within the sixth year barred taxation in AY 2023-24.
The ruling confirms that transactions with banks involve third parties, defeating the identity required for mutuality. While sustaining taxability, the Tribunal permitted a 5% estimated expense deduction to compute real income.
