The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether a penalty could survive despite an allegedly vague notice. It held that since the assessment order and later notices clearly specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was valid.
The issue was whether religious objects alone could defeat an 80G claim. The Tribunal ruled that compliance with the 5% expenditure limit requires fresh examination.
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.
