The issue was whether delay of 18 months could be rejected without proper opportunity. The ITAT held that fair hearing is essential and remanded the matter for reconsideration of delay with supporting evidence.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficient cause exists, delay must be liberally condoned to ensure justice and hearing on merits.
The issue was whether protective additions can survive when substantive additions are deleted. The ITAT held that once the substantive addition fails on merits, the protective addition based on the same material cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constituted transfer triggering capital gains. The tribunal held no taxable transfer occurred as rights were unsettled due to partition disputes and lack of finality.
The case involved estimated addition on agricultural income and dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution. ITAT held such dismissal invalid and ruled that arbitrary estimation without evidence cannot sustain.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus agricultural income taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal set aside the addition and directed the AO to re-examine evidence before reaching a conclusion.
The issue was whether demonetisation cash deposits can be taxed as unexplained credits solely due to use of SBN. The ITAT held that proper explanation and records negate automatic addition under section 68.
The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 9A is not required when a charitable trust sets off earlier years’ excess application against current year income. The set-off is allowable as application of income under Section 11.
The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 9A cannot automatically result in denial of exemption under Section 11. The issue was sent back for reconsideration after examining the condonation application before the Commissioner.
