The issue was whether reassessment was valid without proper service of mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh examination, holding that the jurisdictional issue requires reconsideration.
The tribunal held that government support includes capital grants, land, and infrastructure, not just recurring funding. This broader interpretation justified exemption eligibility.
The tribunal examined whether surcharge applies to private discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate. It held that surcharge is not applicable where income is below ₹50 lakh, as per Finance Act thresholds.
The Tribunal ruled that interest earned from mandatory bank deposits by a co-operative credit society qualifies as business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
ITAT held that delay in submitting Form 10B is procedural and can be condoned. It directed reconsideration of exemption where the audit report was filed during appellate proceedings.
The case involved estimated addition on agricultural income and dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution. ITAT held such dismissal invalid and ruled that arbitrary estimation without evidence cannot sustain.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
The case examined if failure to conduct audit permits arbitrary profit estimation. The ITAT ruled that absence of audit alone cannot justify 8% estimation when books are maintained and not rejected.
