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.
Hriday Vs ITO (Exemption) (Delhi High Court) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, decided a batch of five appeals filed by a charitable society registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010–11 to 2014–15. The appeals challenged a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) […]
The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The ruling reaffirmed that the provision applies only when exempt income actually arises.
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 condoned a 161-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence showing the assessee suffered an accident and dengue fever. The ruling reiterates that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condonation matters.
The tribunal held that exemption for a statutory housing authority depends on whether housing units were sold above cost. The case was remanded to examine if charges exceeded cost plus nominal mark-up.
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.
The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction.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.
