Despite non-compliance during assessment, the Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where facts showed only renewal of deposits. Ex-parte proceedings do not justify treating old FDs as unexplained investments.
The tribunal examined whether a final assessment passed after the statutory time limit was valid. It held that assessments beyond Section 153 timelines are void, even when issued under the DRP framework.
The issue was whether a final assessment under the DRP framework can be passed beyond statutory timelines. The Tribunal held that orders exceeding Section 153 limits are void, reaffirming strict adherence to limitation.
The case examined whether a cinema operator passed on the GST reduction on ticket prices. The Tribunal held that maintaining the same cum-tax prices by increasing base prices amounted to profiteering under Section 171.
The issue centred on whether chilling is merely cooling or a technical process. The Tribunal held that chilling involves scientific tests and preservation steps, constituting processing under the Act and justifying the deduction.
The assessee relied on deemed payment after transferring employee dues to another entity. The Tribunal ruled that section 43B recognises only real payment and set aside the relief granted by the appellate authority.
The Assessing Officer treated all cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that deposits prima facie represented IOC sales and required factual verification before any addition.
The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The issue concerned reassessment initiated through a non-faceless notice despite a binding notification. The ruling confirms that violation of the faceless framework vitiates reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based on a notice issued by the wrong authority cannot survive in law. The decision highlights strict adherence to procedural requirements under the faceless regime.
