Chassis is a semi-finished goods and any treatment done by any other party on the chassis of principal is the activity of the job work.

Though AO had been barred from accepting any new claims, but no such bar had been imposed on appellate authorities, including CIT(A). Assessee was in second round of the litigation and claim of assessee for deduction under section 54 had not been decided properly and its evidence of investment or booking had not been examined in perspective of relevant CBDT circulars and judicial decisions. Accordingly, matter was remanded back to AO for examination afresh with direction to assessee to produce all documentary evidences before AO at the earliest.

As sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of correct person, therefore, section 148 notice issued in the name of deceased assessee was quashed as invalid.

Repairing and servicing of transformers owned by another person is not job work as defined under section 2(68) of the GST Act.

Since accumulated loss in case of company having made advance to assessee-company was in negative, amount received as advance could not be taxed under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands.

Even if expenditure was disallowed under section 40(a)(i) result would be that disallowance would go to increase profits of business which is eligible for deduction under section 10A/10AA and consequently deduction under section 10A/10AA was to be allowed on such enhanced profit.

Where the assessee purchased land from wife at a figure higher than the Jantri Value then such purchase cannot be rejected only such ground particularity where all the necessary facts were duly disclosed by the assessee and assessment was also framed under section 153A/143(3) for the year in which land was purchased.

Assessee in penalty proceedings offered explanation and caused to produce affidavits and record statements of concerned unregistered dealers and establish their credentials. That evidence fully supported the claim of assessee. CIT(A) had not only accepted explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. That being the indisputable position, addition in respect of purchases of marbles from unregistered dealers could not be sustained.

Where the assessee purchased land from wife at a figure higher than the Jantri Value then such purchase cannot be rejected only such ground particularity where all the necessary facts were duly disclosed by the assessee and assessment was also framed under section 153A/143(3) for the year in which land was purchased.

Assessee in penalty proceedings offered explanation and caused to produce affidavits and record statements of concerned unregistered dealers and establish their credentials. That evidence fully supported the claim of assessee. CIT(A) had not only accepted explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. That being the indisputable position, addition in respect of purchases of marbles from unregistered dealers could not be sustained.