ITAT Chennai ruled that the CIT(E)’s scope for Section 12AB registration is limited to verifying charitable objects and activity genuineness, not conducting a full assessment of commercial income. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration.
The Tribunal found that CAM payments are contractual in nature and not for use of property, making 2% TDS deduction under Section 194C appropriate.
In a ruling on non-maintainability, the ITAT found the CIT(E) erred by cancelling the society’s 12A(1)(ac) application merely through an intimation without granting a mandatory hearing. The case has been sent back for a decision on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that delay in filing Form 10B does not invalidate a trust’s exemption claim if the form is submitted before assessment completion and the error is rectified.
ITAT Pune held that issue of taxability of ex-gratia payment to be decided based on identical judgement as decided by coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
AO had added ₹11,38,000/- towards the amount paid to a builder — ₹8,00,000/- by cheque & ₹3,38,000/- in cash — treating it as unexplained. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition on the ground that Assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment.
Tribunal remanded matter for a de novo assessment after noting that Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order without examining ownership and consideration details in a capital gains case.
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documentary proof of the loan’s identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal emphasized that once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must conduct an independent inquiry rather than relying on an unverified Investigation Wing report.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
