The Tribunal ruled that trusts engaged mainly in education, medical aid, and public welfare remain eligible for 80G. Minor worship-related elements do not alter charitable character.
The Tribunal examined cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and accepted explanations relating to past savings and business collections. Only the agricultural income claim was remanded for limited verification.
The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
The Assessing Officer alleged incorrect claim of stamp duty expenditure without identifying any such entry in the accounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding it to be based on presumption.
The ITAT restored an ex-parte assessment where LTCG was added mechanically without hearing the taxpayer. The ruling reinforces that denial of natural justice vitiates capital gains assessments.
The Court ruled that Section 17A lawfully requires prior approval before investigating decisions taken in official capacity. It clarified that the provision balances anti-corruption enforcement with protection against vexatious probes.
The issue was whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are co-operative societies for this provision, making the interest fully deductible.
The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
