Concerns were raised that the definition could narrow protected areas and enable unregulated mining. The Court ordered an independent expert review before any enforcement.
The revision questioned deduction on interest income allowed under section 80P. The Tribunal held that where the AO adopts a legally plausible view after enquiry, section 263 cannot be invoked.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute centered on unexplained investment taxed in an incorrect year. The Tribunal ruled that such an addition is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The exemption was rejected only due to delayed electronic filing of Form 10. The Tribunal ruled that procedural delay cannot override substantive compliance made before assessment completion.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The dispute centered on whether appeals could be dismissed merely on filing a VSV application. The Tribunal ruled that rejection or non-approval of VSV keeps appeals alive.
The case involved alleged bogus purchases backed only by invoices and bank payments. The Tribunal held that without confirmations, transport evidence, or delivery proof, such purchases cannot be treated as genuine.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated while the time to file a belated return was still open. The Tribunal held such reopening premature and void, as income cannot be said to have escaped assessment.
The case involved a massive section 68 addition sustained solely due to non-admission of evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
