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 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.
The case involved denial of deduction due to delayed execution of purchase deed. The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction property qualifies as construction within the extended time limit. It ruled that deduction cannot be denied on technical interpretation of timelines.
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 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 tribunal held that reopening of assessment was invalid due to invocation of the wrong Explanation under Section 147 despite a completed assessment under Section 143(3).
