ITAT Bangalore held that an appeal filed without verification by the authorized Principal Officer was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed liberty to file a properly verified appeal with condonation request, if necessary.
Bangalore ITAT held that applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected on grounds of non-compliance when the assessee had already submitted replies before the ITO as directed. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration after finding the rejection contrary to records.
The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate caused the delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest major additions on merits.
The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the corresponding protective addition in the firm’s hands must be deleted. The ruling clarifies that protective assessments are only temporary safeguards.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation that unspent cash withdrawn for labour and petty expenses was redeposited into the same bank account. The Section 68 addition was consequently deleted.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory reserve fund deposits and co-operative bank accounts qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. It observed that temporarily parking surplus funds does not amount to carrying on a separate investment activity.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Income Tax Act does not bar a trust from filing a fresh Section 80G application merely because an earlier rejection was not challenged. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after holding the “void-ab-initio” finding unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that the use of the word may in Section 271AAC gives discretionary power to the Assessing Officer and does not mandate automatic penalty levy. It emphasized that such discretion must be exercised judiciously.
The ITAT held that the institution’s activities as a seminary imparting religious training to priests established its religious character. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration of registration as a religious trust under Section 12AB.
