Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The Court found that the rejection was only a communication and not a legally valid order. It remitted the matter for fresh decision after proper hearing and consideration of all issues.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that restoration should be considered once the taxpayer complies with filing and payment requirements.
The case involved denial of deduction on interest earned from cooperative bank deposits. The Tribunal held that such income qualifies for deduction as it is derived from investments with a cooperative society.
The issue was whether the assessment order could be revised for lack of inquiry. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and taken a view, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Court examined whether a single notice covering multiple years was valid. It held that differing limitation periods make such notices prejudicial and upheld separate adjudication.
The Court examined whether additions based on a seized document were valid. It held that lack of investigation and inconsistencies rendered the additions unsustainable.
The issue was whether authorities could refuse symbol allotment without legal grounds. The Court ruled that absence of prohibition required fair consideration and granted relief.
The Tribunal examined whether foreign assignment salary credited in India is taxable. It held that salary for services rendered outside India is not taxable, even if received in India.
The Tribunal examined whether VRS compensation could be restricted under section 10(10B). It held that the scheme was effectively retrenchment, allowing full exemption and deleting the addition.
