The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
Authorities taxed refund interest as business income by linking it to earlier PE years. The Tribunal ruled that without a PE in the year of receipt, the income cannot be treated as effectively connected and must enjoy DTAA relief.
The Tribunal emphasized that exemption cannot be denied on assumptions. It restored the case to the AO for limited verification, reinforcing evidence-based assessment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
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.
The tribunal refused to admit a fresh legal challenge to reassessment raised for the first time. However, it remanded the revenue-difference addition for fresh adjudication due to natural justice concerns.
The case addressed whether an authority can reject registration before completion of parallel statutory processes. The Tribunal held that hurried rejection was unjustified and directed de novo adjudication.
Payments made pursuant to allotment confer valuable property rights. Their relinquishment through an agreement to sell amounts to a statutory transfer, entitling the assessee to compute gains or losses under capital gains.
The tribunal ruled that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales and bank withdrawals were genuine. It held that partial, ad-hoc additions without rejecting books of account are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that an appeal should not be rejected merely due to long delay when sufficient cause is shown. It ruled that technicalities cannot defeat substantial justice and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The court held that amounts credited due to a clerical RTGS error cannot be retained or recovered as tax dues when they do not belong to the account holder. Recovery provisions were ruled inapplicable, and the bank was directed to refund the money to the remitter.
