The Tribunal examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
The Tribunal held that the entire political donation could not be treated as bogus in the absence of incriminating evidence. To balance equities, only 10% of the alleged on-money was directed to be taxed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal observed serious procedural lapses, including reliance on an unsigned third-party ledger and denial of cross-examination. To balance equities, only an estimated profit portion was brought to tax.
Despite deficiencies in documentation, agricultural activity and landholding were undisputed. The Tribunal granted partial relief while sustaining a modest addition. The decision highlights a balanced approach where activity is proven but evidence is imperfect.
The case examined whether an appeal dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme could survive when tax payment was uncertain. The Tribunal ruled that actual payment must be verified and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Holding that actions prescribed by statute must be performed only in the specified manner, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. The case reinforces the importance of lawful service of notices before penal action.
The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether reassessment notices could be issued by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless reassessment scheme became mandatory. The Tribunal held that such notices are void, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
