Claims of high success rates in competitive exams were not supported by complete data or documentation. The decision emphasizes that unverifiable claims in advertisements amount to misleading representation and unfair trade practice.
The tribunal held that selling only open land, even if earlier part of a residential property, does not qualify as transfer of a residential house. Since no building was sold, exemption under Section 54 was rightly denied.
The case examined validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond statutory limits. The ITAT held the notice invalid as it exceeded the permissible time period. It reinforces strict compliance with limitation provisions.
CESTAT held that CENVAT credit on employee travel, guest house caretaker services, and group health insurance was admissible as the services were used in relation to business operations.
High Court held that reliance solely on affinity test and cultural traits was insufficient where extensive documentary records, including pre-constitutional entries and family validity certificates, supported the Scheduled Tribe claim.
The case dealt with rejection of books due to unverifiable expenses and lack of supporting records. The ITAT upheld rejection but found 8% profit estimation excessive. It reduced the rate to 5%, emphasizing fairness in estimation.
The case examined whether a statement recorded during search can justify tax additions. The Court held that confession without supporting evidence is insufficient. It reinforces that corroboration is essential for sustaining additions.
High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capital gains because no ascertainable cost of acquisition existed, making computation provisions unworkable.
The Tribunal held that a company engaged in high-end KPO and business solutions could not be compared with a routine captive BPO service provider. It also ruled that a comparable cannot be rejected solely for following a different financial year if reliable quarterly data is available.
The case addressed whether entries in third-party seized documents can justify additions. The ITAT ruled they cannot without independent corroboration. It reinforces that suspicion alone cannot sustain tax additions.
