The Tribunal remanded the appeal after the CIT(A) did not consider additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The assessee can now submit confirmations to substantiate claims. Key takeaway: procedural lapses should not prevent merit-based adjudication.
The assessee’s exemption under section 11 was initially denied as Form 10B was filed after the return. The court held that timely availability before assessment suffices. Key takeaway: Section 11 benefits apply if Form 10B is accessible during assessment.
An addition of ₹14,54,029/- was challenged on sundry creditor differences. The tribunal found total liabilities in the audited balance sheet matched the ITR. Key takeaway: Proper accounting of provisions ensures no unwarranted addition.
The Tribunal held that DCF valuation cannot be discarded merely because projections differ from actual results. AO’s failure to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer rendered the Section 56(2)(viib) addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that Explanation 5A applies only when the assessee is found possessing undisclosed tangible assets, which was not established. Since no such assets were discovered and the additions came from routine assessments, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. This clarifies that the deeming fiction under Explanation 5A is not automatic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned speaking order and dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proving deliberate non-compliance. The matter was remanded with one final opportunity, reinforcing natural justice requirements.
ITAT Pune held that rejection of application for registration under section 12A read with section 12AB of the Income Tax Act since exorbitant fees are being charged and profiteering is not allowed in educational institutes. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision with proper opportunity to the assessee.
ITAT Lucknow held that part of commission income from sugar mills cannot be taxed since other part of commission income has already been allowed for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition of part of commission income set aside and appeal allowed.
GSTAT upheld a profiteered amount of ₹4,57,683 but ruled that interest and penalty do not apply as the relevant CGST Rule amendments are prospective.
