ITAT Chandigarh allows the appeal of Ram Gopal Temple Trust against the CIT(E)’s rejection of its Section 12A registration application, holding that a statute-notified religious institution is not required to furnish a trust deed.
ITAT ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation were justified by proceeds from sale of agricultural land. Tribunal upheld deletion of the ₹1.28 crore addition under Section 69A, confirming that registered sale deeds and evidence of cash flow adequately established the source of the funds.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factually incorrect facts and reasons without application of mind and without verification of facts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT directed the CIT(E) to grant Section 12AB registration, ruling that mere land purchase is a preparatory step and not the commencement of charitable activities, the cancellation of a trust’s provisional registration, stating that technical errors and land acquisition cannot justify denying charitable status.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a CIT(A) order is not void simply because it names the deceased assessee. The Tribunal restored the case, directing the CIT(A) to admit evidence due to the assessee’s prior illness.
Chandigarh ITAT remanded a case where CPC disallowed delayed PF/ESI deposits under section 143(1)(a), holding that factual errors and debatable issues require detailed verification and cannot be adjusted mechanically.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is inapplicable to additional income surrendered during a survey operation that took place before the provision was amended to prescribe the enhanced rate.
The ITAT partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, deleting Rs.26.16 lakh of the unexplained cash deposit added under Section 68 for the demonetisation period. The ruling emphasizes that tax authorities should make a fair estimation when the assessee’s explanation has partial merit, even if the documentary proof is insufficient to justify the whole claim.
The ITAT confirmed that a commission paid to non-resident agents operating solely abroad, without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is not taxable in the country. This finding resulted in the cancellation of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.
