The key issue was whether approval of an IBC resolution plan automatically wipes out the right to carry forward business losses. The Tribunal held that such rights survive and must be examined under the Income-tax Act, not dismissed as infructuous.
The core issue was whether an assessment can survive when DRP directions are disregarded. The Tribunal held that failure to follow binding DRP instructions renders the assessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether a loan can be treated as unexplained despite full repayment within the year. The Tribunal held that once receipt and repayment are proved through banking channels, section 68 cannot apply.
The issue was whether declared business income can be overlooked while estimating profits after rejecting books. The Tribunal held that ignoring returned income leads to double taxation and directed its set-off.
The issue was whether the company could be asked to explain the source of shareholders funds for a pre-2013 year. The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 68 is prospective, making the addition unsustainable.
The issue was whether reassessment can continue when all notices are issued in the name of a deceased assessee. The Tribunal held such proceedings void ab initio, as jurisdiction ceases upon death.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that bypassing mandatory procedure invalidates the relief, and the matter must be re-examined.
The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal held such additions invalid, ruling that proceedings must be initiated under section 153C.
The issue was reopening beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as there was no finding of failure to disclose material facts, a mandatory precondition under the proviso to section 147.
The issue was whether delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions paid before filing the return could be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Checkmate Services is declaratory and applies to earlier years, mandating disallowance.
