The Tribunal set aside rejection of charitable registration where activities were not examined on merits. The case underscores that authorities must assess genuineness of activities before denying registration.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer had accepted a legally possible view. The Tribunal held that where two views exist and the AO adopts one, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be fully treated as undisclosed when income was declared under section 44AD. The key takeaway is acceptance of presumptive business income.
The Tribunal held that demonetization-period cash deposits were supported by agricultural income evidence. The section 68 addition was deleted after accepting bills, vouchers, and landholding details.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
The Assessing Officer inferred undisclosed loans by applying a notional interest rate to declared interest income. The Tribunal ruled that additions under section 69B cannot rest on assumptions ignoring the business model.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated with approval from an incorrect authority is invalid. Where the statute mandates sanction from a higher specified authority, deviation vitiates the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
