ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held that failure to start charitable activities cannot by itself justify denial of registration under section 12AB. Since the trust’s objects were charitable and proposed activities were genuine, the rejection of registration and 80G approval was set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
ITAT Chennai rules 60% tax under Section 115BBE not applicable to AY 2017-18 transactions before 01-04-2017; directs tax on ₹30.43 lakh addition at 30%.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued beyond three years requires sanction from PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from PCIT was held insufficient, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that mere generation of surplus from activities does not convert a charitable trust into a business entity. The key issue is whether the surplus is applied for charitable purposes, requiring fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the identity and source of the investor. Since the AO relied mainly on tracing further layers of transactions without adverse evidence against the assessee, the addition under section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that without rejecting the books or identifying concrete discrepancies, expenses cannot be disallowed on an ad-hoc basis. The Revenues appeal challenging deletion of the addition was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits recorded in regular books of account cannot be treated as unexplained investments under section 69. Since the books were not rejected and no contrary evidence was produced, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that although estimation of income was justified due to absence of books and non-filing of return, applying the 8% presumptive rate automatically was excessive. Considering the nature of the garment business, it reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of bank credits.
