The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether late-fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns before 01-06-2015. The Tribunal held that without Section 200A(1)(c), such levy was without authority of law.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the scope of Section 151A are void in law. All notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) were therefore set aside.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The Court held that tax proceedings cannot continue without first determining who legally represents a deceased assessee. Orders passed without such determination were set aside.
The issue was taxation of LLP partner’s remuneration without applying Sections 28(v) and 40(b). The High Court set aside the assessment for failure to consider the statutory scheme, remanding the matter for fresh decision.
Karnataka High Court quashed the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit documents and replies before reconsideration.
