The Tribunal held that documented WhatsApp communications established counsel’s negligence and the assessee’s due diligence, justifying condonation of delay. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice.
Interest was disallowed solely because the payee had not declared it. The Tribunal relied on Form 26AS showing payment and TDS to allow the claim. The ruling underscores documentary evidence over conjecture.
The Tribunal held that incorrect selection of a clause while filing Form 10AB is a technical and curable defect under the new registration regime. Applications for registration and approval were restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that assessments based on survey and requisition material are invalid when such material is not furnished to the assessee. All quantum additions were remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether six years of search assessments could stand when the first appeal was dismissed ex-parte. ITAT held that denial of meaningful hearing violates natural justice and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that a legitimate deduction cannot be denied merely due to an inadvertent reporting mistake in the return. The matter was remanded to verify facts and allow the deduction if otherwise admissible.
The issue was whether rejection of books and enhancement of gross profit were justified due to alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld partial relief, holding that GP estimation must be reasonable and supported by facts, not solely by procedural lapses.
ITAT Indore held that trust has passed resolution dealing with dissolution and utilization of assets in event of dissolution. Accordingly, the said resolution must be accepted by CIT(E) for granting final approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Thus, matter remanded to the file of CIT(E).
ITAT Indore held that delay of 560 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) rightly not condoned as assessee has failed to give satisfactory and bonafide explanation. Accordingly, delay not condoned as no sufficient cause shown.
The Tribunal held that building construction for future educational use qualifies as charitable activity. The rejection of 80G approval solely due to absence of active operations was ruled unjustified.
