The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority should have adopted a liberal approach while considering additional evidence crucial to adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate the exemption claim.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in terms of the amended statutory requirement. The Tribunal quashed the assessments for lack of proper jurisdictional compliance.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 28-day delay in filing appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-noticing of electronically communicated appellate order. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
The Delhi ITAT held that activities relating to environmental protection, farming awareness, and sustainability education qualify under the preservation of environment limb of Section 2(15). The Tribunal ruled that such activities are not hit by the restrictive proviso applicable to general public utility cases.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal observed that earlier additions were primarily based on DRI show-cause notices without independent investigation by the Assessing Officer. Fresh adjudication was ordered after admission of subsequent customs findings.
ITAT Mumbai observed that the charitable trust had filed its original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication of the exemption claim instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.
Tribunal ruled that compliance with judicial orders restraining deduction of tax at source cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that if Government money was fraudulently routed through the assessee’s account by another person, such deposits may not constitute the assessee’s income. The case was remanded for factual verification.
