The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority decided the case without proper hearing and remanded the issue of section 54F deduction for fresh examination of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that an appeal should not be rejected merely due to long delay when sufficient cause is shown. It ruled that technicalities cannot defeat substantial justice and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that reassessment remains valid when the notice is issued while the company is still on the ROC records. Subsequent striking off does not nullify initiated proceedings.
The Tribunal held that cash paid for a flat booking was explained through documented bank withdrawals. Unexplained investment addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal found that indexation was wrongly applied from a later year. It held that long-term capital gains must be computed from the first year the property was held.
The Tribunal held that demonetization-period cash deposits were supported by agricultural income evidence. The section 68 addition was deleted after accepting bills, vouchers, and landholding details.
The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in filing Form 10IE for an earlier year cannot defeat the assessee’s right to be taxed under the new regime. The assessee was directed to be taxed under Section 115BAC for AY 2023–24.
The Tribunal upheld the remand of an ex parte assessment where substantial bank deposits were not supported by any documentary evidence. It held that unsupported explanations cannot replace proof, and fresh verification by the Assessing Officer was necessary.
The Tribunal held that section 50C could not be applied where the sale consideration exceeded the value accepted by the stamp authority. A clerical error in departmental data could not justify substitution of sale value.
Holding in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal clarified that explained capital supported by documentary proof cannot be treated as unexplained income.
