The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The issue was whether accumulated income could be taxed merely because it was not spent exactly for the purpose stated in Form-10. ITAT Delhi held that as long as funds are applied toward charitable educational objects, technical lapses or non-intimation to the AO cannot defeat exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
Jaipur Tribunal observed that the son had no independent income, and the purchase was made solely from the assessee’s funds. Consequently, restriction of exemption to 50% by the CIT(A) was set aside, confirming full Section 54F relief.
ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
The Tribunal highlighted that non-receipt of assessment notice and lack of knowledge about tax procedures justified the 175-day delay. The appeal was restored to the AO, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present his case.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal set aside the prior order as the deceased assessee could not represent himself and legal heirs were not on record. CIT(A) is directed to consider all issues afresh, including denial of indexed cost and 54F exemption.
The ITAT held that the AO’s allowance of an 80G deduction without examining the background of M/s. Aadhar Foundation was erroneous. The decision reinforces that Explanation-2 to Section 263 requires verification when there is material indicating possible bogus donations.
The tribunal ruled that ignoring a valid adjournment request vitiates ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The is that fair opportunity is mandatory before deciding tax disputes.
