The Tribunal examined how brought-forward losses should be computed for MAT purposes. It held that losses as on the end of the preceding year must be considered, not figures altered during the assessment year.
The Tribunal examined whether an allotment letter fixing consideration could qualify as an agreement under section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that where part payment is made by cheque, stamp duty value on the allotment date must be adopted.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where no incriminating material was found during search. Documentary evidence proving the loan’s genuineness was accepted.
The Tribunal ruled that rental receipts could not be shifted to income from other sources without any change in facts. Long-standing acceptance of house property treatment required the Department to follow consistency.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be applied once the assessee qualified as a company in which the public are substantially interested. The ruling clarifies that the charging provision itself fails where statutory exclusion applies.
The addition for alleged cash paid towards property purchase was deleted as the transaction itself stood cancelled. The ruling confirms that cancelled transactions weaken unexplained cash allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
The Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that where identical facts existed in earlier years, the addition for alleged bogus purchases must follow past precedent. It restricted the addition to 5 percent, applying the principle of consistency.
