Tribunal held that ₹15 crore received for withdrawing a civil suit was not consideration for transfer of a capital asset. It ruled that the assessee only gave up a right to sue, which is not taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(b) did not apply to a trust formed before 1961 and directed grant of registration. The key issue was whether activities for a Scheduled Caste community invalidated the application.
Tribunal held that a provision for bad debts need not be routed through the Profit & Loss account in the first eligible year under Section 36(1)(viia). The disallowance was deleted as the audited statements reflected the provision as on 31.03.2007.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred in applying a 15% illiquidity discount on shares valued by the NAV method. SEBI MF guidelines and DCF-based precedents were deemed irrelevant. The assessee’s valuation was confirmed, and the Rs. 8.70 crore addition was nullified.
The Tribunal annulled the reassessment after finding that both the notice and order were issued to a company that had been struck off. It held the proceedings invalid and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions must be supported by actual evidence, not mere surmise from third-party statements. The assessee’s invoices and valuer reports disproved alleged cash payments, leading to complete deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed uploading of Form 10B, treating the lapse as procedural and directing allowance of exemption.
The Tribunal observed that identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven through confirmations, returns, and banking trails, and the AO failed to conduct enquiries under Sections 133(6) or 131. It also held that the ₹6.45 lakh loan difference belonged to past years, making the entire ₹22.45 lakh addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that CSR expenses donated to recognized charitable institutions satisfy the conditions of Section 80G. It emphasized that statutory CSR obligations do not interfere with 80G eligibility and directed allowance of the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ruling confirms that ambiguity in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) is fatal.
