The Court held that penalty for delayed reversal of credit on obsolete inputs was unjustified since no advantage was gained and the credit had been duly reversed. The writ petition was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.
The tribunal held that the State Electricity Board consumer tariff of ₹6.62/unit was the valid internal CUP for captive power transfer. Rejecting comparisons with generating companies, it ruled that no downward adjustment was required. The key takeaway is that actual SEB purchase rates can reliably determine market value for 80IA claims.
Tribunal upheld capital gains exemptions after finding that assessee had furnished proof of investments under sections 54F and 54EC. The ruling confirms that omission to consider evidence cannot justify denial of statutory relief.
The Tribunal held that granting only one day to reply to a show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh examination.
Tribunal held that AO erred by rejecting agricultural income based on estimated rates and online data while ignoring affidavits from buyers. It ruled that uncontroverted evidence cannot be replaced by assumptions, leading to deletion of ₹1.20 crore addition.
The ruling found no liability to deduct TDS because individual payments to transferors were below the statutory threshold. Consequently, the fee and interest imposed under Section 234E were set aside.
The High Court set aside reassessment notices for not following mandatory faceless procedures introduced by recent Finance Act amendments. The ruling underscores that non-faceless issuance violates statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions made by treating real estate receipts as capital gains required fresh verification. The case was remanded as the earlier order failed to examine the assessee’s claim of business income under section 44AD.
The Court held that cost directions based on earlier guidelines cannot be enforced as binding precedent. It set aside the imposed costs since the complainant sought no further payment and the appellant could not comply.
Tribunal held that the AO had validly recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee’s 14A working and rightly invoked Rule 8D, confirming interest disallowance while remanding only the investment-averaging computation for Vireet-based recalculation.
