The Tribunal ruled that additions for alleged cash payments cannot survive when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. Absence of corroboration and denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The High Court held that criminal prosecution for delayed TDS payment cannot survive where sanction is granted mechanically without examining explanations and mitigating circumstances.
The issue was whether a reassessment could survive when reasons were recorded after issuing notice. The Tribunal held the reopening invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked prior satisfaction, rendering the entire proceedings void.
The issue was whether a holding company with no operating revenue could claim business expenses. The Tribunal held that making strategic investments to control subsidiaries is itself a business activity, allowing expenses and loss set-off.
Delhi ITAT held that issuing notice under section 148 before recording reasons and obtaining approval is a fatal jurisdictional defect. Reassessment initiated without prior satisfaction was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable when earned by a State instrumentality. Since it was assessed as “income from other sources,” the trade-or-business exception under Article 289(2) did not apply.
Kolkata ITAT held that mere suspicion or self-made vouchers cannot justify ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses. Without evidence that expenditure was illegal or prohibited, Section 37 disallowance cannot survive.
The Tribunal ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon unless furnished and tested through cross-examination. Natural justice overrides suspicion in section 68 proceedings.
The dispute concerned taxation of land sale as capital gains despite claims that it was agricultural land beyond municipal limits. The Tribunal held that rejecting the claim without examining evidence was improper and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
