ITAT Mumbai restored exemption under section 11(1)(a) despite a clerical mistake in Form 10B. The original form was timely filed, and the revised form only corrected the error, ensuring the trust’s substantive rights were protected.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for a long delay, noting negligence and absence of due care. late appeals require concrete justification, not assumptions or later legal advice.
ITAT held that non-receipt of statutory notices by an NRI constituted reasonable cause, restoring the reassessment and deleting penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c). penalties cannot survive when non-compliance arises from legitimate ignorance.
The Tribunal held that deciding the appeal ex parte violated natural justice and remanded the FTC dispute for full reconsideration. appellate orders must not be passed without proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT remanded the rejection of 12A registration after finding that incorrect clause selection was a clerical mistake. substantive eligibility and genuine charitable activities outweigh technical errors.
ITAT Delhi held that granting blanket 153D approval without independent examination vitiates assessments. approvals under section 153D must be individualized and carefully considered.
The Tribunal held that once the underlying Section 263 revision was set aside, the consequential assessment lost legal validity. The key takeaway: without a valid foundation, no further appellate proceedings can survive.
The addition arose from adopting registration-date valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), while the assessee produced documents showing prior rights and payments. The Tribunal held the new evidence to be material and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue afresh.
The Tribunal observed that additions forming the basis of the penalty had not yet attained finality before the first appellate authority. It therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after completion of the quantum appeal.
