The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The Tribunal held that change in accounting method causing timing difference cannot lead to double taxation. Since prior period adjustment was allowed and no revenue loss occurred, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that the holding period of the previous owner must be included when property is acquired through inheritance or trust devolution. As a result, gains were treated as long-term and exemption under Section 54EC was allowed, while Section 54 was remanded for verification.
The tribunal held that taxing entire gross receipts is unsustainable and only profit embedded in receipts should be taxed. However, the matter was remanded as fresh evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity to verify.
The Tribunal held that subscription to preference shares cannot be re-characterized as loans in absence of evidence showing sham transactions. Notional interest addition was deleted.
The case involved addition of share sale proceeds treated as bogus based on investigation reports. The Tribunal held that no direct evidence linked the assessee to manipulation. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and demat channels cannot be disregarded without proof.
The case involved denial of deduction due to delayed execution of purchase deed. The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction property qualifies as construction within the extended time limit. It ruled that deduction cannot be denied on technical interpretation of timelines.
The case involved an order passed without any reply from the taxpayer to the show cause notice. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. It held that an opportunity must be given when substantial tax recovery has already occurred.
The case involved reopening of assessment based on issues already examined during scrutiny. The Court held that reassessment without new material is invalid. It ruled that reopening on the same facts amounts to impermissible action.
The case involved denial of ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) allowed ITC within an extended timeline. It ruled that orders rejecting ITC solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable.
