ITAT Ahmedabad held that repayment of a shareholder’s own deposit, even if used for political donation, is not deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as no company funds were advanced.
The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on Government grants parked under official directions cannot be divorced from the original grant. Denial of exemption was found to defeat the purpose of section 10(23C)(iiiab), leading to relief for the assessee.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held to be business receipts already recorded as sales in audited books. The tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 amounts to double taxation.
The ruling clarifies that denial of charitable exemption for delayed Form 10B goes beyond Section 143(1). If verification is needed, it cannot be resolved through mechanical processing adjustments.
Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied without examining crucial evidence. The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and legal issues.
Income earned from sanitation, gardening, and waste management contracts was treated as charitable. The tribunal held such receipts furthered environmental objects under Section 2(15).
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained as no genuine business need for holding large idle cash was shown. The tribunal upheld the Section 68 addition, stressing proof of necessity and cash retention.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The issue was whether revision is valid when political donations were not fully verified. The Tribunal held that failure to examine genuineness of donees justifies action under Section 263.
The case examined whether overseas income used for Indian property purchase is taxable. The Tribunal held that income earned and remitted from abroad cannot be treated as unexplained investment.
