This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
The issue was whether stake money paid to horse owners attracts TDS under Sections 194B or 194BB. The Tribunal held that stake money is distinct from betting winnings and deleted the Section 201 tax and interest demand.
It was ruled that funds paid in India to a student remain an application in India under Section 11. Utilisation of the grant outside India does not violate charitable exemption provisions.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
The case questioned whether a cooperative banks audited expenses could be disallowed on a percentage basis for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal ruled against arbitrary disallowance without defects in accounts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The appellate order confirmed loan additions without addressing the Rule 46A plea. Holding this to be a serious procedural defect, the Tribunal set aside the order for de novo adjudication.
The dispute centered on profit estimation after reopening for suppressed turnover. The Tribunal affirmed lower NP for animal sales, recognising industry norms and assessee history. The ruling underscores tailoring estimates to trade economics.
While reopening of assessment was sustained due to bank deposit information, the cash addition was deleted on merits. Proper explanation of source defeats Section 69A.
