The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held that Section 263 proceedings are a continuation of original assessment.
The ruling holds that deposits made from surplus business funds are part of operational activity. Interest earned on such deposits is business income and not income from other sources. Therefore, Section 80P benefit was granted.
The issue was whether a succession certificate granted without impleading a minor heir was valid. The Supreme Court set aside the ex parte order, holding denial of hearing to a minor vitiates proceedings.
The case examines whether penalty can be levied when the quantum issue is admitted by the High Court. The Tribunal held that admission of substantial questions of law makes the issue debatable. As a result, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly deleted.
The issue was denial of deduction under Section 54F as a fresh claim not made in return. The ruling remanded the matter, holding such claims can be examined if supported by facts.
The issue was whether full bank deposits of a commission agent can be taxed as unexplained income. The ruling held only commission income taxable, with 8% estimation upheld as reasonable.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond 3 years is valid when escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The ruling held such notice invalid under Section 149, and the key takeaway is strict adherence to limitation rules.
The Tribunal examined whether cash deposits backed by prior withdrawals can be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that in absence of evidence showing alternative use of cash, the source stands explained.
The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to specify underreporting or misreporting in notice invalidates penalty. Proper identification of charge is mandatory for valid proceedings.
