ITAT Jaipur held that denial of Section 11 exemption solely due to non-furnishing of the registration certificate under Section 12A is invalid where 80G approval exists, since 80G presupposes valid 12AA registration.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Dehradun accepted ₹15 lakh from poplar tree sales as explained income and ruled that Section 115BBE applies prospectively from 1 April 2017. Tribunal granted partial relief, deleting major additions made on demonetisation cash deposits.
Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order confirming addition of ₹15.01 lakh as unexplained cash deposits, directing the authority to give the assessee a fair opportunity to rebut the remand report and produce supporting evidence.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.11 Cr capital gains addition for the sale of alleged agricultural land back to the AO for fresh verification. The matter was sent back due to the assessee’s non-compliance and non-submission of evidence in prior proceedings.
ITAT Pune set aside an addition of Rs.38.26 lakh, accepting new evidence (affidavits from the assessee and a clerk) that the agricultural income shown in the return was a clerical error. The Tribunal ruled that no person should be taxed on income that never existed and remanded the case to the AO for fresh verification and de novo assessment.
ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
ITAT ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation were justified by proceeds from sale of agricultural land. Tribunal upheld deletion of the ₹1.28 crore addition under Section 69A, confirming that registered sale deeds and evidence of cash flow adequately established the source of the funds.
ITAT Pune deleted the penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh imposed under Section 270A(9) for misreporting income related to delayed PF/ESIC payments. The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee’s claim was based on prevailing High Court judgments and the issue was debatable until the Supreme Court ruling, the mere disallowance of expenditure, where all particulars were disclosed, does not attract a misreporting penalty.
ITAT Pune set aside the rejection of a final 80G approval application, ruling that a technical delay caused by withdrawing and refiling the application due to a typographical error should be condoned. The Tribunal held that rejecting the application on mere procedural lapse, despite the original filing being on time, defeats the purpose of the law.
