The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2(15). Registration under Section 12A cannot be denied merely because fee-based receipts were earned.
The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the assessee failed to deposit unutilised funds in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal ruled that actual investment in a residential house within the prescribed period amounted to substantive compliance deserving liberal interpretation.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement forms the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reliance on such untested statements violates principles of natural justice and renders the addition legally unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that reopening for AY 2016–17 becomes invalid when sanction is obtained from an authority not prescribed under Section 151(2). The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling by dismissing the Revenue’s SLP on delay and merits.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The Tribunal held that differences between customs assessable value and invoice value cannot automatically justify additions under Section 69C. The ruling clarifies that actual unexplained expenditure must first be proved by the Revenue.
The Delhi ITAT held that belated filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural lapse and cannot extinguish substantive Foreign Tax Credit rights under sections 90/90A/91 and applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal directed verification and grant of FTC where the form was filed before completion of assessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings on Section 269SS violation. Since no regular assessment was framed, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp messages and digital chats cannot by themselves establish undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on presumptions without independent evidence.
