The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The issue concerned reassessment initiated through a non-faceless notice despite a binding notification. The ruling confirms that violation of the faceless framework vitiates reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based on a notice issued by the wrong authority cannot survive in law. The decision highlights strict adherence to procedural requirements under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s power to remand an ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication. It ruled that such action was within jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the assessment order was set aside. The Tribunal held that once the basis of the addition is extinguished, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that reassessment remains valid when the notice is issued while the company is still on the ROC records. Subsequent striking off does not nullify initiated proceedings.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, noting that transferred employees performed functions entirely for the assessee. Salary expenditure was held to be incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that cash paid for a flat booking was explained through documented bank withdrawals. Unexplained investment addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal found that indexation was wrongly applied from a later year. It held that long-term capital gains must be computed from the first year the property was held.
