The ITAT held that specific-purpose government grants for institutional development are corpus by their inherent character. The AO’s addition of ₹1.7 crore to gross receipts was quashed, emphasizing that utilized grants for setting up assets cannot be treated as income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that banks can claim deductions for provisions for bad debts on total income, including capital gains, rejecting the CIT’s restriction to business income.
The Supreme Court held that the without aid of power exemption cannot apply when any essential step, like stentering, uses electricity. Continuous multi-unit processing is treated as a single power-aided manufacture.
ITAT held that cash deposits made by directors before investing in share capital cannot be treated as unexplained income of the company. The ruling emphasizes that proper identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness documentation must be evaluated before invoking Section 68.
ITAT held that late filing of Form 10B cannot automatically deny exemption when the delay is bona fide and curable. The matter was remanded for fresh examination after recognising that Form 10B is a procedural requirement.
ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid when concealment and inaccurate particulars are invoked together without specifying the exact charge. The ruling reinforces that penalty notices must be unambiguous and legally precise.
ITAT held that Section 263 requires the PCIT to conduct independent inquiry before declaring an order erroneous. Since the PCIT relied only on assumptions of inadequate inquiry, the revision was invalid.
The Tribunal held that although transportation proof was lacking and the supplier was unverifiable, accepted sales established that trading had occurred. It ruled that only the profit element of 2% could be added, and the addition could not be taxed under section 115BBE.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment cannot be added without confronting the assessee with the Koinex transaction data relied upon by the AO. Matter remanded for fresh verification.
Holds that once a tax dispute is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, Section 263 revision cannot be invoked. Confirms that VSV grants finality and bars reopening of settled issues.
