The Assessing Officer inferred undisclosed loans by applying a notional interest rate to declared interest income. The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69B cannot rest on assumptions ignoring the business model.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated with approval from an incorrect authority is invalid. Where the statute mandates sanction from a higher specified authority, deviation vitiates the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
Failure to comply with section 143(2) by the competent Assessing Officer invalidates the assessment. The decision underscores strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements under the Act.
The tribunal examined whether a Singapore entity could claim DTAA exemption on capital gains from sale of Indian shares. It held that treaty benefits were unavailable as the entity lacked commercial substance and functioned as a shell or conduit.
The Tribunal ruled that nominal differences between declared consideration and stamp duty valuation do not trigger tax. Tolerance limits must be applied to avoid unjust enrichment of revenue.
The decision reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated on borrowed satisfaction or presumptions. Independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is mandatory for a valid reopening.
The Tribunal held that search-based reassessments issued beyond six assessment years are barred by limitation. Revenue appeals were dismissed as the statutory time limits could not be extended.
Construction, fit-out, and IT installation costs capitalised in fixed assets were held genuine. The Tribunal emphasized substance of records over suspicion based on third-party allegations.
The Tribunal held that no TDS demand can survive where tax was duly deposited and PAN became operative within the CBDT-prescribed timeline. Deductors are entitled to relief under the beneficial 2024 CBDT circular.
