The Tribunal held that a bona fide delay caused by genuine circumstances deserves condonation. The key takeaway is that technical limitation cannot override substantive justice.
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 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 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.
The issue was whether share sale proceeds could be taxed as unexplained based on general investigation reports. The Tribunal held that without concrete evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, additions cannot survive.
The Tribunal upheld revision since business expenses were within limited scrutiny and education cess deduction was not verified. The key takeaway is that lack of enquiry on a covered issue makes the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The key issue was whether approval of an IBC resolution plan automatically wipes out the right to carry forward business losses. The Tribunal held that such rights survive and must be examined under the Income-tax Act, not dismissed as infructuous.
