ITAT set aside CIT(E) orders denying 12AB registration, holding that section 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked at registration stage; charitable intent and activities must be examined independently.
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed PCIT’s revisionary orders, holding that Section 263 powers cannot be used when the AO has made thorough enquiries. Revision requires demonstrable error prejudicial to revenue, not mere differences of opinion.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked when the PCIT himself does not conduct the verification he insists was missing. It reaffirms that revision requires demonstrated lack of inquiry, not assumptions.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal after noting that the case was already remanded under section 251(1)(a). The once a matter is reopened before the AO, the assessee may abandon the pending appeal.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
The Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 issued beyond the surviving period under TOLA are invalid, leading to quashing of assessment orders. Time-bar limits override procedural provisions.
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for re-examination of a section 36(1)(va) addition due to inadvertent error in the original audit report. The matter was restored to the AO to pass a speaking order. This highlights the importance of rectifying audit errors to prevent wrongful income additions.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Rs. 17.93 crore disallowance since the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. It applied binding High Court rulings holding that Section 14A cannot operate without exempt income. The decision confirms that the 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
