Holding that there was no real delay, the Tribunal directed grant of section 80G approval. The decision stresses practical and reasonable interpretation of filing timelines.
An addition based on a third-party statement was challenged for denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal held that natural justice must be followed and directed a fresh hearing.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years was valid without approval from the correct authority. ITAT held the notice void as sanction was taken from the wrong officer, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 151.
Denial of the 15% rate through summary processing was held invalid. Eligibility under section 115BAB requires examination and hearing, not mechanical CPC adjustments.
The issue was whether reopening is valid when the information relied upon is not shared. The Tribunal held that failure to supply such material violates natural justice and vitiates reassessment.
The issue was whether an extraordinary delay caused by non-communication of intimation and a CPC error could be condoned. ITAT held the delay was unintentional, imposed costs, and remanded the case for adjudication on merits.
The issue was whether commission income could be estimated without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal ruled that estimation without invoking section 145(3) and section 144 is impermissible.
The Revenue argued that routing through banking channels was insufficient. The Tribunal rejected this contention, holding that complete documentary evidence satisfied all requirements of Section 68.
The ruling reiterates that reassessment cannot be sustained where documentary evidence shows no loan transaction. Incorrect third-party information cannot justify reopening.
The case dealt with a TDS return processed in March 2015 where late fee was levied. The Tribunal held such levy to be without jurisdiction under the law then in force.
