The issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was rejection of charitable registration for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal held that an ex parte rejection without adequate opportunity warrants remand for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was valid. The Tribunal held it to be barred by limitation, rendering the entire reassessment void.
The issue was whether cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are recorded in books, audited, and reflected in VAT returns, section 68 cannot be invoked on mere probability.
The issue concerned massive additions made in an ex-parte assessment due to alleged unexplained share transactions. The Tribunal held that such issues require proper factual verification and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether an appeal could be dismissed solely for delay without examining merits. The Tribunal held that where delay is bona fide, technical rejection is improper and the matter must be decided on merits.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹4.41 crore addition where the assessment relied only on a survey statement later retracted. It ruled that, without independent evidence, such admissions and loose papers cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The issue was whether mutual fund dividend could be taxed as share dividend due to return-form limitations. The Tribunal held that section 115BBDA applies only to dividends from domestic companies, not mutual funds.
The Tribunal remanded the case because the Commissioner (Appeals) decided a Section 248 appeal without hearing the Assessing Officer. The ruling highlights that statutory hearing requirements under Section 250 must be followed.
