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.
The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction. Since the explanation was supported by loan records and confirmations, the addition was removed.
ITAT ruled that addition under Section 68 requires a fresh credit in the books during the relevant year. Where loans represent opening balances from earlier years, they cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
ITAT Pune held that creation of artificial intangible asset i.e. goodwill in intra-group merger is merely a colourable transaction out between the Holding Company and the subsidiary company. Accordingly, depreciation claimed thereon deserves to be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after noting that the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The ruling reiterates that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
