The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
ITAT Chennai held once the AO has conducted inquiry, examined replies and adopted a legally sustainable view, the same cannot be treated as erroneous. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that absence of charitable activities at the time of application does not make a trust non-genuine. The key takeaway is that proposed activities and charitable objects must be considered for registration.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations received with specific directions are capital in nature and cannot be included in annual receipts. Since actual receipts were below ₹1 crore, exemption was allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years not sustainable since there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, reassessment is invalid for non-furnishing of actual reasons recorded.
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee could not respond to certain notices. The case was restored for reconsideration after giving adequate opportunity.
