The tribunal held that systematic sports training and self-defence instruction to students constitute education under Section 2(15). As activities were charitable and genuine, denial of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G was set aside.
The case involved exemption claim on maturity of an assigned Keyman Insurance Policy. The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 10(10D) includes assigned policies and applies retrospectively. It ruled that such receipts remain taxable despite assignment.
The case involved non-passing of ITC benefits after GST implementation. The Tribunal held that full ITC gains must be passed on and ordered refund with interest.
The issue included verification of ITC benefit among buyers. The Tribunal relied on DGAP findings and the builder’s acceptance to confirm liability. The ruling underscores the evidentiary role of buyer confirmations.
The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The Tribunal held that change in accounting method causing timing difference cannot lead to double taxation. Since prior period adjustment was allowed and no revenue loss occurred, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that the holding period of the previous owner must be included when property is acquired through inheritance or trust devolution. As a result, gains were treated as long-term and exemption under Section 54EC was allowed, while Section 54 was remanded for verification.
The tribunal held that taxing entire gross receipts is unsustainable and only profit embedded in receipts should be taxed. However, the matter was remanded as fresh evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity to verify.
The Tribunal held that subscription to preference shares cannot be re-characterized as loans in absence of evidence showing sham transactions. Notional interest addition was deleted.
The case involved addition of share sale proceeds treated as bogus based on investigation reports. The Tribunal held that no direct evidence linked the assessee to manipulation. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and demat channels cannot be disregarded without proof.
