The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The issue involved whether credit could be availed when duties were paid via DEPB instead of cash. The Tribunal held that such payment qualifies for CENVAT credit. The takeaway is that mode of payment does not restrict credit eligibility.
The issue involved penalty on individuals claiming ignorance of smuggled gold. The Tribunal rejected the defence due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies. The takeaway is that unsupported claims cannot negate liability.
The issue involved taxability of subsidies received from BCCI. The Tribunal held that such payments are grants-in-aid and not consideration for services. The takeaway is that grants for promotion of sports are not taxable.
The issue involved whether a guarantee cap covered both principal and interest. The Tribunal held that default interest is a separate liability. The takeaway is that interest obligations can extend beyond capped principal liability.
The case examined conflicting allegations of non-movement and diversion of goods. The Tribunal held that such inconsistency, along with prior duty payment, made the demand unsustainable.
The issue involved revision of assessment where income was declared under Section 44AD. The Tribunal held that absence of books makes Section 68 inapplicable. The takeaway is that revision cannot be based on lack of records not required by law.
The issue involved addition made without providing a hearing. The Tribunal held that once such action is invalid, further directions cannot be issued. The takeaway is that procedural violation nullifies subsequent directions.
