A.K.G. Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Termination Valid, Blacklisting Invalid – SC Separates Consequences, Enforces Strict Natural Justice The Supreme Court upheld the termination of contract but set aside the blacklisting order, holding that blacklisting is not an automatic consequence of termination and requires independent […]
The issue was whether income from sale of foundation seeds qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that such activities involve basic agricultural operations and allowed exemption under Section 10(1).
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate claims despite multiple opportunities. It emphasized that procedural non-compliance weakens legal claims.
The tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 54F deduction was premature as the assessee later produced relevant documents. It directed reassessment to verify evidence and ensure proper hearing.
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.
