The dispute concerned denial of donor approval before finality of charitable registration. The Tribunal held that 80G approval is consequential and cannot be refused while 12AB registration is under re-examination.
The Supreme Court held that quashing corruption FIRs on technical objections to police-station notification was unjustified. The key takeaway is that substance and continuity of law prevail over procedural hyper-technicalities.
The appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to alleged non-compliance by the assessee. The ITAT found that notices were issued to the wrong email despite correct details on record and ordered de novo consideration.
The case clarifies that commission paid to foreign agents for export facilitation abroad cannot be disallowed for non-deduction of tax. Absence of income accrual in India was decisive.
The assessee challenged denial of Section 80P deduction in the order giving effect to the CIT(A)’s directions. The Tribunal ruled that Section 253 permits appeal only against CIT(A) orders, not against implementation orders.
The issue was whether final registration could be denied without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal held that rejection without a show-cause notice violates natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
It was held that neither the AO nor the appellate authority provided any factual basis for estimating disallowance. The ruling confirms that estimation must be backed by evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is deductible under section 80P(2)(d). The ruling follows settled law that such societies are distinct from co-operative banks.
It was ruled that denial of registration merely because activities are at an initial stage is unjustified. The takeaway is that limited funds and phased implementation do not negate charitable intent.
The dispute involved whether the Varanasi Bench could adjudicate an appeal arising from a Kolkata-based assessment. The Tribunal held that filing before an incorrect Bench is fatal and parties must approach the jurisdictional Tribunal.
