The Tribunal ruled that collection of fees by an educational trust does not negate its charitable character. Where donations and fees are separately accounted, denial of 80G approval is unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that denying the entire construction cost while computing capital gains is unjustified. The Assessing Officer must verify the valuation report and determine a reasonable cost of construction.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to the legal heirs under Section 159 before initiating reassessment.
The Tribunal held that a communication proposing adjustment under Section 143(1) is not an appealable order. Only the final intimation determining tax liability can be challenged through an appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits routed through a partners personal bank account were explained as firms business receipts. Without evidence of undisclosed sources, Section 69A addition cannot be made.
The court ruled that submitting revised returns showing higher income after a search does not wipe out earlier concealment. Criminal proceedings for wilful tax evasion and false statements remain maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the authority misapplied the law by relying on provisions relating to donor deductions rather than approval conditions for institutions. Since the trust fulfilled statutory requirements, the rejection of approval was set aside.
The Tribunal refused to condone an 840-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee claimed the Chartered Accountant failed to inform about the assessment order. It held that a taxpayer must remain vigilant about proceedings and cannot shift full responsibility to the counsel.
The Tribunal held that a trust engaged in educational activities for the public cannot be labelled religious without supporting material. It directed the authority to reconsider both registration and 80G approval.
The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had filed Form 68 seeking immunity from penalty but the request was rejected without due process. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the immunity claim in accordance with law.
