The Tribunal held that notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. It relied on CBDT Instruction prescribing monetary limits. The ruling highlights strict adherence to jurisdictional norms.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
The issue involved estimation of income based solely on bank credits without supporting verification. The Tribunal remanded the case, directing assessment based on GST and VAT turnover.
The tribunal held that interest cannot be disallowed where advances to related parties are made for business purposes and out of own funds, emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that lack of inquiry into a large receipt justified revision under Section 263. It found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The ruling reinforces duty of proper verification.
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The Tribunal held that consistent investment history and documentary proof established genuineness of share transactions. Additions under Section 68 were deleted due to lack of contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. It rejected the reliance on registration date alone. The ruling clarifies timing criteria for capital gains exemption.
The Tribunal held that revisionary powers cannot be used to substitute the AO’s view with that of the Pr. CIT. It emphasized that such substitution is beyond Section 263. The decision protects independent assessment decisions.
The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) permits only correction of apparent errors, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s application.
