The tribunal held that appellate orders passed ex-parte without examining merits violate natural justice. Matters were restored for fresh adjudication after giving proper hearing.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable where title, possession, and identity of land are seriously disputed. In such cases, the proper remedy is a suit for possession or declaration, not injunction alone.
The Supreme Court held that a joint committee is mandatory only when removal motions are admitted in both Houses. If admitted in one House alone, the Speaker or Chairman can validly constitute a committee.
The tribunal held that adjustments made under section 143(1) solely on Form 3CD disclosures are not conclusive. Matters involving contingent liabilities and factual disputes must be verified by the Assessing Officer.
Capital gains were computed without allowing improvement costs due to submission of an incorrect valuation report. The Tribunal held that a bona fide mistake justified reconsideration with correct evidence.
The tribunal held that a legitimate deduction cannot be denied merely due to an inadvertent reporting mistake in the return. The matter was remanded to verify facts and allow the deduction if otherwise admissible.
The core issue was whether lack of knowledge of proceedings justified late appeals. The Tribunal held that notices sent to an inaccessible email amounted to sufficient cause. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred because no condonation petition was filed. Delay without explanation renders the appeal non-maintainable.
The case examined whether interest beyond Section 24 limits could be claimed when loan funds were temporarily used elsewhere. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must verify real deployment of funds before disallowance.
The dispute centered on whether omission to verify exceptional items prejudices revenue. The Tribunal upheld revision, emphasizing Explanation 2 to section 263. The ruling reinforces that absence of inquiry itself is sufficient ground for revision.
