ITAT remanded the rejection of 12A registration after finding that incorrect clause selection was a clerical mistake. substantive eligibility and genuine charitable activities outweigh technical errors.
ITAT Pune held that application for registration u/s. 12A r.w.s 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for non-obtaining of prior permission of Charity Commissioner for loans since the same is procedural lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(E) set aside and registration u/s. 12A r.w.s. 12AB granted.
ITAT Delhi held that granting blanket 153D approval without independent examination vitiates assessments. approvals under section 153D must be individualized and carefully considered.
ITAT Mumbai held that issue of whether the land is an agricultural land or not needs more verification since department has not tested required conditions as prescribed u/s. 2(14)(iii). Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO.
The Tribunal held that once the underlying Section 263 revision was set aside, the consequential assessment lost legal validity. The key takeaway: without a valid foundation, no further appellate proceedings can survive.
The addition arose from adopting registration-date valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), while the assessee produced documents showing prior rights and payments. The Tribunal held the new evidence to be material and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue afresh.
The Tribunal observed that additions forming the basis of the penalty had not yet attained finality before the first appellate authority. It therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after completion of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that past years consistently allowed ESOP expenditure as revenue, and no new facts justified deviation. once an issue is settled for identical facts, consistency must be maintained.
The ruling emphasized that transfer requires full payment and handover of possession, which were absent during AY 2015-16. The Tribunal deleted the addition and held that taxing the income again would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
