The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
The tribunal noted that the firm had no business activity and only earned interest income. It held that unexplained income cannot be presumed in such circumstances when contributors are identified.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings could survive when issued outside the faceless mechanism. The ruling confirms that non-compliance with the faceless scheme is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
The issue was whether delayed filing of Form 10B bars exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal held the delay to be procedural and sustained exemption since audit was completed and report filed during appellate proceedings.
The issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was rejection of charitable registration for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal held that an ex parte rejection without adequate opportunity warrants remand for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was valid. The Tribunal held it to be barred by limitation, rendering the entire reassessment void.
The issue was whether cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are recorded in books, audited, and reflected in VAT returns, section 68 cannot be invoked on mere probability.
The issue concerned massive additions made in an ex-parte assessment due to alleged unexplained share transactions. The Tribunal held that such issues require proper factual verification and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether an appeal could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that where delay is bona fide, technical rejection is improper and the matter must be decided on merits.
