The case examined whether a 2345-day delay could be condoned based on reasons like miscommunication and financial hardship. The Tribunal held that vague explanations and negligence do not qualify as sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of appeals.
The issue was whether CSR expenditure qualifies for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal held that deduction is allowable as there is no specific prohibition except for certain funds.
The Tribunal held that delayed verification of an e-filed return is only a procedural lapse. Deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied when the return was filed within the due date.
ITAT examined demonetisation cash deposits and accepted sales and withdrawals as valid sources. However, addition was partly sustained due to unsubstantiated claims like cash gifts.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest provision only increases business income, which remains eligible for Section 80P deduction. Hence, the addition was treated as tax-neutral and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that booking a flat in an under-construction project qualifies as construction. Since possession was obtained within three years, full deduction under section 54 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus based solely on investigation reports. In absence of independent inquiry or evidence, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the tax effect was below the CBDT’s prescribed limit. The case was not examined on merits due to non-maintainability.
The ruling rejected re-characterization of share transactions as loans in absence of exceptional circumstances. Interest imputation on such transactions was deleted.
