The dispute involved penalties on bank interest earned by a mutual entity prior to a change in law. The Tribunal held that a bona fide claim based on settled law cannot be treated as concealment, warranting deletion of penalties.
The ITAT held that cancellation of provisional registration merely for non-compliance with notices is unsustainable when lapses are not deliberate. The case was remanded to allow the applicant a fair opportunity to establish genuineness of activities.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
The case examined whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders could stand without merit-based adjudication. The Tribunal held that failure to decide all grounds violates natural justice and ordered a fresh assessment.
The ITAT held that a deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form 10DA was partially invisible on the tax portal. The issue was remanded for limited verification now that the complete form is available.
The ITAT held that additions based on incorrect and unreconciled bank data cannot be sustained. The assessment was remanded for fresh verification of actual cash deposits and credits.
The ITAT held that registration cannot be denied based on an incorrect interpretation of trust objects. Where amended deeds and clarifications exist, authorities must examine them before rejecting 12AB registration.
The ITAT held that reassessment based on a duplicate PAN, despite disclosure under a valid PAN, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Ex parte orders passed without addressing such objections violate principles of natural justice.
