The Patna ITAT upheld rejection of a trust’s Section 12AB registration after finding that the trust deed permitted application of income for persons residing outside India. The Tribunal held that Section 11 allows exemption only for charitable expenditure incurred in India.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded in the books of account. The matter was remanded for limited verification of sales records and related documents.
The Mumbai ITAT held that exemption under Section 54F has to be given effect before applying set-off provisions under Section 70(3). The assessee was allowed to carry forward long-term capital loss separately.
ITAT observed that Assessing Officer had treated jewellery sale proceeds as unexplained mainly because no wealth tax returns were filed. Tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination in light of supporting vouchers and legal precedents.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the penalty order under Section 271D after the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of hearing during penalty proceedings. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and examination of supporting evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that effective opportunity of hearing was not provided before passing ex parte assessment and appellate orders. The matter relating to sustained addition was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be initiated after three years unless the alleged escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh. Since the disputed amount was only ₹7.10 lakh, the reopening was quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that expenditure on software licences, maintenance, database access and periodic upgrades is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that mere use of software does not create a capital asset or enduring ownership right.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extraordinary reasons. In absence of special circumstances, the penalty was restricted to the minimum prescribed rate of 30%.
The Mumbai ITAT held that taxability cannot be conclusively decided while an application for exemption under Section 10(46) remains pending before the CBDT. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the CBDT’s final decision.
