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.
Though earlier dismissed for non-prosecution, the Tribunal evaluated the substantive grounds relating to bonus disallowance and income inclusion, granting partial relief.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer after finding that important objections on land classification and cost of acquisition were not verified. A fresh decision must be made after proper examination.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal examined the levy of late fees under Section 234E for TDS defaults prior to the Finance Act 2015 amendment. It held that Section 234E, as a charging provision, was enforceable even before procedural updates in Section 200A. The ruling emphasizes that machinery provisions cannot negate substantive liabilities.
The Tribunal recognized the assessee’s health issues and financial weakness as valid grounds for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court’s principle favouring substantial justice. It held that repeated notices for the same enquiry cannot multiply the default. Consequently, the penalty was scaled down to a single default, offering relief of ₹40,000.
