The Tribunal held that once business receipts are taxed on an estimated basis, separate additions for payments and assets from the same receipts are impermissible. Only a net-profit estimation was sustained, deleting multiple cascading additions.
The tribunal accepted that allotment confers enforceable capital rights capable of transfer. The ruling clarifies that proceeds from such transfers must be assessed under capital gains, not deemed income.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS cannot be automatic when paid to an NBFC. The Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has offered the income to tax.
Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C on income arising from an APA. Interest was deleted as APA income crystallises only on signing, making advance-tax estimation impossible.
The Tribunal reiterated that procedural delays in uploading Form 10B should not defeat substantive tax exemptions available to charitable trusts. Denial of Section 11 relief merely due to late filing was held to be unjustified where charitable activities were undisputed.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
The case addressed whether exemption could be disallowed through prima facie adjustment under section 143(1). The Tribunal held such denial impermissible and ordered fresh consideration.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of acquisition could be fixed on assumptions. It held that government-notified MVR rates must be considered and ad-hoc estimates cannot replace statutory valuation methods.
ITAT Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
