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.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated while the time to file a belated return was still open. The Tribunal held such reopening premature and void, as income cannot be said to have escaped assessment.
The case involved a massive section 68 addition sustained solely due to non-admission of evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The dispute involved penalties on bank interest earned by a mutual entity prior to a change in law. The Tribunal held that a bona fide claim based on settled law cannot be treated as concealment, warranting deletion of penalties.
