Technicalities Cannot Defeat Substantial Justice: ITAT Allows Delayed Appeal of Rural Senior Citizen- Email Notices Ignored by 74-Year-Old HUF Kartha – ITAT Bangalore Grants Relief & Restores Matter to NFAC
The ITAT Bangalore has condoned a 126-day delay for a senior citizen, remanding her property transaction case to the AO after finding she was unaware of proceedings due to her son’s death.
The ITAT Bangalore bench held that the objects of Shrthiparampara Gurukulam, a trust teaching Vedas, are charitable and not religious. This ruling allows the trust to claim tax exemptions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, reversing the CIT(E)’s decision which had categorized the trust as religious and ineligible for approval.
The tribunal rejected the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)’s argument, distinguishing it from an outdated Supreme Court precedent and emphasizing that the trust’s objects were for the general public’s benefit.
The ITAT Bangalore ruled in Ramesh Kumar vs. ACIT that capital gains tax can’t be levied based on mere possession, a commencement certificate, and an unregistered Power of Attorney.
The ITAT Bangalore rules that while a co-operative society’s late IT return warrants disallowing its Section 80P deduction, the tax authorities must still assess and tax the net profit, not the gross income, after allowing for all related expenses.
ITAT Bangalore reverses a CIT(E) order, holding that teaching Vedas is a charitable activity, not a religious one, and an organization promoting it is eligible for Section 80G tax exemption. This decision relies on precedents that define Hinduism as a way of life.
Tribunal remands assessment of Namdhari Seeds on income from leased lands, awaiting Supreme Court ruling on whether contract farming income qualifies as agricultural income under section 10(1).
ITAT emphasized that section 69C applies only to unexplained or unrecorded expenditure; recorded educational expenses cannot be arbitrarily disallowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Bangalore ruled that an individual’s right to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is substantive, and a delay in filing Form 67, a procedural requirement, cannot extinguish this right.
