The tribunal noted that the firm had no business activity and only earned interest income. It held that unexplained income cannot be presumed in such circumstances when contributors are identified.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings could survive when issued outside the faceless mechanism. The ruling confirms that non-compliance with the faceless scheme is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
The issue was whether delayed filing of Form 10B bars exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal held the delay to be procedural and sustained exemption since audit was completed and report filed during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a 3,134-day delay deserved condonation where the assessee proved non-service of the assessment order. The key takeaway is that absence of service constitutes sufficient cause and justice cannot be denied on limitation alone.
The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) based on a forged revised return is appealable. It directed a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file the correct return, reaffirming that technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide delay caused by genuine circumstances deserves condonation. The key takeaway is that technical limitation cannot override substantive justice.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance of interest paid on housing loan is upheld since assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence like loan sanction letter or bank certificate. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
The issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was rejection of charitable registration for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal held that an ex parte rejection without adequate opportunity warrants remand for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was valid. The Tribunal held it to be barred by limitation, rendering the entire reassessment void.
