Payments to AwasBandhu were allowed as application of income. The Tribunal held such statutory contributions further public purposes and cannot be treated as non-business or taxable expenses.
The Tribunal held that wrist watches are valuable articles covered under Section 69A, and additions made under Section 69 were unsustainable.
The issue was whether a WhatsApp image from a third party could justify a cash addition. The Tribunal held the digital evidence inadmissible due to lack of lawful collection and chain of custody, deleting the addition.
The reassessment was initiated beyond the permissible time frame. The Tribunal declared the entire proceedings void from inception. The key lesson is that jurisdictional defects render reassessments unenforceable.
The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that once reassessment is validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can tax any escaped income discovered later. Additions need not relate to the original reopening reason.
The Tribunal held that absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) vitiates the entire reassessment. Participation by the assessee cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal ruled that an issue conclusively settled by ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court cannot be revisited by the AO under Section 254. Deduction under Section 10A was ordered to be allowed.
The Tribunal rejected full disallowance of alleged bogus purchases and adopted a balanced approach by estimating profit at 10%. Section 68 was held to be wrongly invoked.
