The ruling declares reassessment void where notices were not issued through the faceless mechanism post-29.03.2022. Lesson: non-compliance with section 151A vitiates reopening.
The Tribunal held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by documents, the entire purchase value cannot be added as bogus. Only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the full expenditure.
The case addressed the legality of reopening an assessment when the notice was not issued through NFAC. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that such deviation vitiates the entire reassessment process.
Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that estimations must reflect the nature of the taxpayer’s business.
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 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 Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The issue was whether a second reassessment could be initiated on the same facts already examined earlier. The Tribunal held that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid and quashed the reassessment.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held that reopening was barred as there was no failure to disclose material facts.
The AO denied exemption relying on an inspector’s report citing minimal construction. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed a habitable residence, entitling exemption.
