The Assessing Officer assumed that no return of income was filed while recording reasons under section 147. The Tribunal ruled that such factually incorrect reasons vitiate the assumption of jurisdiction itself.
The issue was whether stamp duty value on the agreement date could replace the registration-date value for section 56 additions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the claimed earlier payment. Key takeaway: benefit of the proviso depends on proving the agreement and payment date.
The case examined rejection of registration without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal ruled that deciding against the trust without confronting it on objections violates principles of natural justice. Key takeaway: procedural fairness is mandatory in section 12A proceedings.
Interest was disallowed treating the loan as bogus. Once the loan itself was held genuine, the Tribunal allowed the interest deduction. The ruling confirms that business interest cannot be denied without proof of sham transactions.
Whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed in the society’s hands. Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that once cash is admitted to belong to members, no addition under section 68 can be made in the society’s assessment.
Expenditure on tunnel-specific infrastructure was ruled not to give enduring benefit beyond the contract period. The ruling clarifies that longevity alone does not convert temporary project tools into capital assets.
The PCIT sought to revise the assessment for lack of arms length determination. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted when the TPO did not act. The decision reinforces limits on section 263.
Whether interest earned on fixed deposits by a credit co-operative society qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that interest from depositing surplus business funds in permitted banks is attributable to the credit business and eligible for deduction.
Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
The Tribunal held that shares acquired directly from promoters through preferential allotment require strict scrutiny when linked to abnormal price rise. Failure to establish commercial rationale justified restoring the matter for fresh verification.
