It was ruled that the bar on fresh claims applies only to assessing officers, not appellate bodies. A valid Section 54F claim must be examined on merits during appeal.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
The issue was whether stake money paid to horse owners attracts TDS under Sections 194B or 194BB. The Tribunal held that stake money is distinct from betting winnings and deleted the Section 201 tax and interest demand.
It was ruled that funds paid in India to a student remain an application in India under Section 11. Utilisation of the grant outside India does not violate charitable exemption provisions.
It was ruled that deciding appeals based on facts of another year is a serious legal error. The matter was sent back for reconsideration on correct facts.
The Court quashed a confiscation order after finding no proof of personal notice to the owner. The ruling underscores that meaningful notice and opportunity are mandatory before confiscation.
The case questioned whether a cooperative banks audited expenses could be disallowed on a percentage basis for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal ruled against arbitrary disallowance without defects in accounts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
It was held that documented capital contributions supported by affidavits, bank records, and land evidence are explained credits. Assessing authorities cannot disregard undisputed financial capacity.
The Tribunal held that although profiteering was initially computed, the developer had already passed on a higher amount to the buyer. With full discharge of Section 171 obligations, proceedings were closed.
