ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
The Tribunal refused to condone an extraordinary delay of 2,590 days, noting absence of evidence supporting the reasons cited for the delay. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to cancel registered sale deeds, as DRTs cannot adjudicate such relief. The ruling sets aside rejection of the plaint and restores the suit for trial, clarifying limits of Section 34 SARFAESI.
The Court held that objections such as lack of pre-SCN consultation were waived and that disputed findings should be raised in appeal. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies.
The High Court set aside the refusal to condone a 523-day delay after finding the explanation adequate. The ruling allows the trust’s Form 10 filing to be accepted for exemption purposes.
The Court held that payments received by the assessee could not be treated as professional income because no proof of services rendered was produced. The ruling confirms that absence of evidence justifies treating such receipts as salary.
The Court ordered transfer of the pending company appeal to the NCLAT Principal Bench after concerns arose from a judicial disclosure. The ruling ensures impartial adjudication and places broader issues before the Chief Justice.
The Court held that interest and related receipts must be treated as business income, not income from other sources. The Tribunal’s order was upheld as no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the denial of 12AB registration could not stand where the assessee was not given an effective chance to submit documents. The matter was remanded to ensure compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the trust’s exemption claim must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s AUDA judgment, which redefined rules for general public utility entities. The key issue is whether fee-based activities exceed the statutory limits under section 2(15).
