The Tribunal ruled that CPC cannot deny carry forward of losses during processing under Section 143(1) without issuing prior intimation notice. Since losses were accepted in earlier years, the adjustment was set aside.
The Tribunal found that advances of ₹50 lakh each were duly recorded, confirmed, and repaid. With no unexplained credit involved, the addition of ₹90 lakh was deleted and the appeal allowed.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that club expenses of a corporate assessee cannot be disallowed on estimation or presumption. Entire addition was deleted as the expenditure was held to be wholly allowable.
The case addressed addition of a large gift treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter after admitting additional evidence showing the donor’s identity, relationship, and financial capacity.
The Tribunal examined whether the AO formed an independent belief before reopening. Finding verbatim reasons and rubber-stamp approval, it set aside the reassessment and consequential penalty.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The issue was whether section 68 additions could survive when loans were already repaid. The Tribunal held that once the assessee is no longer a beneficiary, such additions are unsustainable.
The Revenue relied on ITS data to allege unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled that where cash books and stock registers are maintained without defects, such additions are unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
