It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
Authorities taxed refund interest as business income by linking it to earlier PE years. The Tribunal ruled that without a PE in the year of receipt, the income cannot be treated as effectively connected and must enjoy DTAA relief.
The ruling clarifies that Rule 46A is not breached when additional evidence is remanded but the Assessing Officer fails to respond. Relief granted by the CIT(A) in such cases remains valid.
The issue was whether 100% of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed despite accepted production and sales. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The ITAT held that the PCIT (Central) had no authority to cancel trust registration under Section 12AB. Jurisdiction for exemption matters lies exclusively with the Commissioner (Exemption).
The Tribunal found that full construction cost was not proved with evidence. However, a reasonable ad-hoc allowance was granted considering practical difficulties.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when no addition is made on the very issue for which reopening was initiated. Once the recorded reason fails, the entire reassessment collapses.
The Tribunal held that late filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural lapse. Deduction cannot be denied when the audit report is filed before assessment processing.
The dispute centered on whether appeals could be dismissed merely on filing a VSV application. The Tribunal ruled that rejection or non-approval of VSV keeps appeals alive.
The case involved alleged bogus purchases backed only by invoices and bank payments. The Tribunal held that without confirmations, transport evidence, or delivery proof, such purchases cannot be treated as genuine.
