The Tribunal examined whether purchases could be treated as bogus solely on investigation inputs. It held that without independent verification or rebuttal of documentary evidence, the addition could not survive.
The tribunal held that advances received from customers for future services cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. Once the assessee proves identity, nature, and business purpose, Section 68 addition fails.
The tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without application of mind. Such invalid sanction vitiated the entire search assessment, leading to quashing of the order.
The dispute centered on whether indexation could be claimed on a factory building sold along with land. The tribunal held that once depreciation is claimed, section 50 applies, and indexation is not permissible.
The tribunal held that salary payments, even with TDS and bank transfers, require proof of genuineness and business nexus. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of employee evidence.
The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and must be decided on merits. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory requirements.
The issue was whether appeals could be decided ex parte without examining merits. The tribunal held that lack of effective hearing violates natural justice, warranting remand for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that AMC services and marketing support services could not be aggregated for transfer pricing purposes. It directed separate segment-wise benchmarking based on functional differences.
The Tribunal set aside the confirmed penalty where non-filing of return was attributed to medical reasons. The case was remanded for fresh examination of reasonable cause before sustaining penalty under Section 270A.
The Tribunal set aside rejection of registration due to partial documentation and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing natural justice.
