ITAT Mumbai restored exemption under section 11(1)(a) despite a clerical mistake in Form 10B. The original form was timely filed, and the revised form only corrected the error, ensuring the trust’s substantive rights were protected.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for a long delay, noting negligence and absence of due care. late appeals require concrete justification, not assumptions or later legal advice.
ITAT held that non-receipt of statutory notices by an NRI constituted reasonable cause, restoring the reassessment and deleting penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c). penalties cannot survive when non-compliance arises from legitimate ignorance.
The Tribunal held that deciding the appeal ex parte violated natural justice and remanded the FTC dispute for full reconsideration. appellate orders must not be passed without proper opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that unexplained partner capital contributions cannot be treated as income of the firm. Only individual partners’ contributions can be assessed, overturning a Rs. 3.26 crore addition.
ITAT remanded the rejection of 12A registration after finding that incorrect clause selection was a clerical mistake. substantive eligibility and genuine charitable activities outweigh technical errors.
ITAT Pune held that application for registration u/s. 12A r.w.s 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for non-obtaining of prior permission of Charity Commissioner for loans since the same is procedural lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(E) set aside and registration u/s. 12A r.w.s. 12AB granted.
ITAT Delhi held that granting blanket 153D approval without independent examination vitiates assessments. approvals under section 153D must be individualized and carefully considered.
ITAT Mumbai held that issue of whether the land is an agricultural land or not needs more verification since department has not tested required conditions as prescribed u/s. 2(14)(iii). Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO.
