The court held that once late fee is imposed for delayed annual return filing, a further general penalty is not permissible. Section 125 applies only where no specific penalty exists.
The Supreme Court upheld that mere excess stock found during inspection is insufficient for confiscation under Section 130. Tax must be assessed through Section 35(6) read with Sections 73 or 74, ensuring due process.
The issue was whether a WhatsApp image from a third party could justify a cash addition. The Tribunal held the digital evidence inadmissible due to lack of lawful collection and chain of custody, deleting the addition.
Holding Section 54F to be a beneficial provision, the Tribunal applied settled judicial principles to allow exemption where substantive conditions were met, directing deletion of the capital gains addition.
The Tribunal confirmed that only ₹10 lakh received by the assessee could be taxed. Addition based on total sale value was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found from a third party cannot justify addition for cash interest without corroborative evidence. Presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C cannot be applied against a non-searched assessee.
The Court held that professional legal work does not convert a residential connection into commercial use. The excess demand raised was ordered to be refunded.
The reassessment was struck down as sanction was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151. Jurisdictional defect invalidated all subsequent proceedings.
The authority held that non-maintenance of statutory minutes attracts a fixed penalty even if records were destroyed due to unforeseen events. Flood damage was treated as mitigation, not a defence to statutory liability.
The Court held that insolvency proceedings do not entitle an accused to seek records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Documents sought to aid answers are premature and must await the charge sheet.
