The issue was whether a second reassessment could be initiated on the same facts already examined earlier. The Tribunal held that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid and quashed the reassessment.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held that reopening was barred as there was no failure to disclose material facts.
The issue was whether the Company Law Board could condone delay in appeals under Section 58(3). The Supreme Court held that CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, had no such power in absence of statutory authority.
The Tribunal examined whether a cash addition under section 69 could rest solely on an Excel sheet seized from a third party. It held the addition unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice.
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.
