Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
The Tribunal held that shares acquired directly from promoters through preferential allotment require strict scrutiny when linked to abnormal price rise. Failure to establish commercial rationale justified restoring the matter for fresh verification.
Whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be explained as cash sales. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal upheld addition under section 69A, finding implausible sales patterns, rejected books, and lack of evidence; human probability prevailed over book entries.
The Tribunal examined whether a single approval could cover multiple assessment years in search cases. It held that separate approvals are mandatory for each year. The ruling underscores strict procedural compliance under section 153D.
While an error in computation was acknowledged, prejudice to Revenue was not established. The Tribunal quashed the revision for lack of both ingredients. The ruling clarifies strict thresholds for invoking section 263.
The case examined whether entire purchases could be treated as bogus when sales were undisputed. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 6%, holding that only a reasonable estimation was warranted.
Recognizing the nature of the manufacturing business and accepted sales, the Tribunal scaled down the disallowance. The decision stresses pragmatic assessment. It avoids penalizing genuine turnover.
The Tribunal clarified that expenditure disallowances do not qualify as assets under section 149(1). Without asset-based escaped income, reopening beyond three years is barred. This offers strong protection against belated reassessments.
The Tribunal held that interest from bank fixed deposits lacked a direct nexus with credit facilities. Deduction under Section 80P was denied as investment income dominated.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on third-party information without independent application of mind is invalid. Income escaping assessment must be based on the Assessing Officer’s own reason to believe.
