The Tribunal held that a Section 54 exemption can be claimed in a reassessment return if it directly relates to escaped income. Delay or non-filing of the original return under Section 139(1) alone cannot defeat a substantive deduction.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
The issue was whether a flat 12.5% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal ruled that when sales are accepted and books are not rejected, only a lower, reasonable estimation can apply, capping it at 5%.
The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on third-party Excel data after holding that denial of cross-examination of the key witness violated natural justice. The ruling confirms that such denial is fatal where the statement forms the foundation of the addition.
The issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when bogus purchases are disallowed on an estimated basis. The Tribunal held that estimation does not establish concealment, making the penalty unsustainable.
The case examined additions made in Section 153C assessments based on third-party search material. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot stand unless incriminating documents are furnished to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that cash gifts received from relatives covered under section 56(2)(vii) cannot be taxed as unexplained credits. Once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved, section 68 has no application.
The issue was rejection of trust registration as non-maintainable without hearing. The Tribunal ruled that due opportunity must be granted and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings could continue when seized material was handed over after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices are barred by law, rendering the assessment void.
The case examined whether the Assessing Officer could reject a DCF valuation. The Tribunal held that commercial valuation choices, if legally prescribed and supported, cannot be second-guessed.
