The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains from listed share sales could not be treated as bogus merely due to high profits. In the absence of contrary evidence, additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted.
The issue was whether a trust with mixed charitable and religious objects could be denied 80G approval. The Tribunal held that composite trusts are eligible if religious expenditure stays within statutory limits, and directed grant of approval.
The AO denied exemption relying on an inspector’s report citing minimal construction. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed a habitable residence, entitling exemption.
The ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 where the Assessing Officer accepted large demonetisation cash deposits without proper verification. Failure to examine utilisation of withdrawals or call for a cash book rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether an appeal can be rejected without first considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that dismissal without condoning delay is invalid and requires fresh adjudication.
The issue was confirmation of penalty without reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking appellate order violates law and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that artificial profits or losses arising from Client Code Modification in share transactions carried out in F&O segment requires transaction-wise reconciliation. Accordingly, matter restore to the file of AO.
The issue was whether rental income from land qualified as agricultural income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal held that inadequate proof justified remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
Karnataka High Court held that request for waiver of pre-deposit amount under Section 129E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not acceptable since petitioner is an established business and there is no financial distress. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the surviving limitation period was valid. The Tribunal held the notice time-barred in light of the Supreme Court ruling, rendering the entire reassessment invalid.
