The Tribunal held that additions made without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice violate CBDT instructions and natural justice. Key takeaway: Procedural compliance is essential for valid assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that advisory and consultancy services could not be taxed as Fees for Included Services because no technical knowledge was transferred to clients.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Court held that export consignments are regulated by the Foreign Trade Policy, not domestic food safety norms. FSSAI standards cannot be enforced unless expressly incorporated into the FTP.
The court ruled that insisting on a flat 20% deposit to grant stay is illegal, holding that authorities must exercise discretion under Section 220(6) after considering merits and hardship.
The Tribunal held that it was unclear whether the ₹20 lakh receipt was a loan or a property advance and remanded the matter for fresh examination. The ruling underscores that section 68 additions depend on establishing the true character of the receipt through contemporaneous evidence.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
