The reassessment was annulled after the notice was found procedurally defective. The Tribunal affirmed that binding High Court precedent required issuance by a faceless AO.
The Tribunal held that once a Section 263 revision is set aside, the consequential assessment has no legal existence. All proceedings based on such assessment automatically collapse.
Penalties were imposed for cash transactions during the first year of business. The Tribunal found bona fide circumstances and no tax-evasion intent, granting relief under section 273B. The ruling underscores liberal interpretation of reasonable cause.
Holding Section 54F to be a beneficial provision, the Tribunal applied settled judicial principles to allow exemption where substantive conditions were met, directing deletion of the capital gains addition.
The reassessment was initiated beyond the permissible time frame. The Tribunal declared the entire proceedings void from inception. The key lesson is that jurisdictional defects render reassessments unenforceable.
The Tribunal held that reassessment fails when the show-cause notice is issued on an incorrect factual premise. Jurisdiction under section 147 collapses if the foundation under section 148A is flawed.
The Tribunal held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Fair market value determination is mandatory before sustaining a Section 50C addition.
The Tribunal confirmed that only ₹10 lakh received by the assessee could be taxed. Addition based on total sale value was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
The Tribunal held that share capital received from promoters cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68 without tangible evidence. Mere suspicion about source of funds or share premium is insufficient.
