Tribunal rules that documented proof of shareholder identity and creditworthiness outweigh unverified third-party statements for income-tax purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s turnover before applying corporate tax. If turnover for FY 2018-19 is under ₹400 crore, the tax rate must be computed at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2010-11, noting that AO failed to verify agricultural income and bank deposits properly. CIT(A) also overlooked key evidence. The case is remitted for fresh assessment to ensure proper scrutiny.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal despite Supreme Court–mandated limitation extensions. COVID-19–related delays must be liberally condoned when reasonable cause is shown.
The Tribunal clarified two key issues: depreciation on assets received in demerger and PF/ESI contribution disallowances. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed for AY 2017-18, while the assessee’s appeal for AY 2024-25 was partly allowed. This decision reinforces consistency in asset-related claims and practical application of Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that audited separate books proved correct profits, making the AO’s proportionate estimation unsustainable. 80P deduction cannot be reduced when business-wise accounts are properly maintained.
The Tribunal examined the levy of late fees under Section 234E for TDS defaults prior to the Finance Act 2015 amendment. It held that Section 234E, as a charging provision, was enforceable even before procedural updates in Section 200A. The ruling emphasizes that machinery provisions cannot negate substantive liabilities.
The Tribunal held that donations to an institution whose approval was withdrawn retrospectively cannot qualify for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). Reopening was upheld, and bona fide belief offered no protection.
