The issue was whether a completed assessment could be revised without identifying concrete errors. The Tribunal held that vague observations and absence of specific defects do not justify invoking section 263.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments with a co-operative bank registered as a co-operative society qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The tribunal ruled that an assessment order signed manually instead of digitally in e-proceedings violates binding CBDT instructions and is legally void.
The tribunal examined whether an assessment under section 144 could survive without issuance of a notice under section 143(2). It held that non-issuance of the mandatory notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that denial of CSR expenditure under Section 37 does not bar deduction under Section 80G. It ruled that eligible donations forming part of CSR must be examined under Chapter VI-A independently. The key takeaway is that CSR-linked donations can still qualify for tax relief if statutory conditions are met.
The tribunal examined whether reassessment could be initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee. It held that notices issued by an incorrect authority render the entire reassessment void.
The tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deductible as it was recorded under a consistent mercantile accounting system and in line with applicable accounting standards. The ruling reiterates that such losses are allowable when gains are similarly taxed.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of an appeal without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to grant adequate opportunity.
The tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued after three years was invalid as sanction was taken from an incompetent authority. The assessment was quashed for non-compliance with section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld revision where the Assessing Officer failed to examine an exempt LTCG claim linked to penny stock manipulation. The ruling affirms that lack of inquiry makes an order erroneous and prejudicial.
