The ITAT set aside CIT(E) orders denying Section 12A registration and 80G approval due to non-receipt of document requests, allowing the trust a fresh opportunity to comply.
The Tribunal held that donations to an institution whose approval was withdrawn retrospectively cannot qualify for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii). Reopening was upheld, and bona fide belief offered no protection.
The Tribunal observed that the cooperative society’s members relied entirely on their CA, who failed to represent them in ex-parte assessments. In the interest of justice, the quantum additions were set aside and restored for fresh adjudication. Penalties were also deleted pending reassessment.
The ITAT quashed assessments under Section 153A due to ex-parte orders, mechanical Section 153D approvals, and failure to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that short notice and lack of opportunity violated principles of natural justice in rejecting 80G registration. The CIT(E) is directed to allow the assessee to explain the Trust’s objectives. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring fair adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands the matter after persistent non-compliance, directing the assessee to prove the source of cash payments against credit-card expenses. A cost of ₹5,000 to PMNRF is imposed as a condition for fresh examination.
Tribunal confirms that co-operative societies’ operational expenditures have business nexus with interest income; Section 57 deduction of Rs.62.57 lakh allowed.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court had already quashed the original assessment for violating the IBC resolution plan, the PCIT’s section 263 revision could not survive. Since a revision must rest on a valid assessment order, the entire 263 action became void. The appeals were allowed and the revision orders were cancelled.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully explained through matching earlier withdrawals. The addition of ₹15 lakh was removed as the source of funds was satisfactorily proven.
The Tribunal invalidated an assessment passed without awaiting the Departmental Valuation Officer report, holding that provisional assessments violate section 50C(2) and 143(3). The rectification under section 154 based on later material was also impermissible.
