Tribunal held that filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, not a mandatory condition for exemption under Section 11, allowing relief to a charitable trust despite a four-day delay in uploading audit report.
ITAT ruled that the appeal dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating merits violated natural justice. The Tribunal directed a fresh review, emphasizing that taxing gross receipts without allowing legitimate expenditure is not in accordance with law.
ITAT found authorities erred by upholding CPC’s denial of exemption solely because assessee filed ITR-7 instead of ITR-5. Ruling emphasizes that denying a just claim over procedural non-compliance causes undue hardship to taxpayer.
ITAT allowed taxpayer’s appeal, holding AO erred by applying Section 50C to cash compensation received for extinguishment of a right to receive flats instead of an actual transfer of immovable property. The order directs deletion of confirmed LTCG addition of Rs. 80.32 lakhs.
ITAT Mumbai held that, in terms of section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, co-operative society is not liable to deduction TDS on interest paid or credited on deposits to members before 1st June 2015. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45.69 lakh disallowance made by CPC under Section 43B for unpaid GST/Service Tax. Tribunal held disallowance was invalid because assessee had not claimed taxes as an expenditure in Profit and Loss Account.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
ITAT Chennai set aside the rejection of an 80G registration application, holding that the prescribed timelines are directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to process the delayed application on its merits under the amended law.
ribunal held that a delayed application filed after the CBDT deadline could be treated as filed under the new clause (iv)(B) of Section 80G(5), introduced by the Finance Act, 2024. The matter was remanded to CIT(E) for reconsideration.
Despite a significant delay, the ITAT Pune condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and the assessee’s later knowledge of the ₹25 Lakh leave encashment exemption notification. The case was sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to apply the enhanced limit and related case law, highlighting the precedence of justice in appeal delays.
