Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission doesn’t possess power to change the head of income and convert the undisclosed portion of income into income u/s. 699B. Further, Settlement application is bound to be rejected once Settlement Commission arrives at the conclusion that full and true disclosure is not done.
No incriminating material showed payment over the registered consideration. The tribunal held that without independent evidence, the ₹1.52 Cr addition could not be sustained.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked despite detailed verification of unsecured loans during scrutiny. The ITAT held that once enquiries are duly conducted, section 263 cannot be used for a deeper re-probe.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
The tribunal noted that the firm had no business activity and only earned interest income. It held that unexplained income cannot be presumed in such circumstances when contributors are identified.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings could survive when issued outside the faceless mechanism. The ruling confirms that non-compliance with the faceless scheme is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts paid during investigation cannot be retained once the demand is set aside. Only lawful assessments can justify retention, and illegal collections must be refunded with interest.
The issue was whether delayed filing of Form 10B bars exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal held the delay to be procedural and sustained exemption since audit was completed and report filed during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a 3,134-day delay deserved condonation where the assessee proved non-service of the assessment order. The key takeaway is that absence of service constitutes sufficient cause and justice cannot be denied on limitation alone.
The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) based on a forged revised return is appealable. It directed a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file the correct return, reaffirming that technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
