The case involved additions made solely on an Excel sheet and a third-party statement alleging cash payments. The Tribunal ruled that such unverified material, without independent evidence, cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether penalty applies when a bogus donation claim is withdrawn after detection. The Tribunal held that post-detection withdrawal is not voluntary, and penalty for misreporting was rightly imposed.
The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of labour expenses without concrete evidence is unsustainable. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot justify additions when proper documentation exists.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering additional documents.
The court held that issuing multiple demand notices for a single adjudication order is improper. It directed issuance of a composite notice to enable a single appeal.
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
