The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
Where updated cash books explained the cash found and no defects were pointed out, additions under section 69A were held unsustainable. Substantiation with regular books prevailed over search-time snapshots.
The issue concerned reassessment initiated through a non-faceless notice despite a binding notification. The ruling confirms that violation of the faceless framework vitiates reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based on a notice issued by the wrong authority cannot survive in law. The decision highlights strict adherence to procedural requirements under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s power to remand an ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication. It ruled that such action was within jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the assessment order was set aside. The Tribunal held that once the basis of the addition is extinguished, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, noting that transferred employees performed functions entirely for the assessee. Salary expenditure was held to be incurred for business purposes.
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 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.
