The Tribunal ruled that the disallowance of interest on the ground of mixed-funds usage could not be sustained without allowing the AO to verify supporting documents. The matter was remitted to ensure a fresh and fair assessment in accordance with law.
The tribunal examined whether lack of expenditure justified rejection of 12AB and 80G applications. It ruled that a newly formed trust cannot be denied registration merely because it has not yet commenced activities.
The tribunal ruled that rejecting the assessee’s request for virtual hearing violated natural justice. The matter was restored for fresh consideration to ensure fair opportunity to present submissions.
The tribunal condoned a 458-day delay after an appeal order was sent to the wrong counsel. The case was remanded for fresh hearing to ensure the assessee’s full opportunity to present evidence in a demonetisation cash-deposit matter.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) passed beyond statutory time limits is invalid. The ruling reinforces that the outer limit under section 153 cannot be extended, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation provisions.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 292-day delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee’s age, dependence, and overseas travel. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication of capital gains, ensuring fair opportunity and justice.
The Tribunal found that once additional evidence is admitted and remand is called for, the Assessing Officer must be given an effective opportunity to respond. Deciding the appeal without waiting for the remand report was held to be legally unsustainable.
ITAT Pune ruled that the Maharashtra PSI-2007 subsidy of ₹37.85 crore is a capital receipt. The order reversed CIT(A) and AO’s revenue treatment, protecting the assessee from taxation.
The ITAT held that income appearing in Form 26AS cannot be taxed unless actually received when the assessee follows cash accounting. The ruling confirms that 26AS entries alone cannot justify additions.
The Court held that violation of the ₹20,000 cash-loan limit under tax law attracts only penalty and does not void the debt. Cheque-bounce prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act remain valid despite such breaches.
