The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
The tribunal held that systematic sports training and self-defence instruction to students constitute education under Section 2(15). As activities were charitable and genuine, denial of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G was set aside.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The tribunal refused to admit a fresh legal challenge to reassessment raised for the first time. However, it remanded the revenue-difference addition for fresh adjudication due to natural justice concerns.
The case concerned denial of deduction citing dealings with associate members. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court precedent and directed the AO to verify member status and society bye-laws before deciding eligibility.
The Tribunal held that eligibility of deduction on interest from scheduled banks depends on whether funds are operational to the credit business. The matter was remanded to verify the society’s activities and source of funds.
ITAT observed that NFAC neither followed the mandatory remand requirement under Section 251(1) nor complied with the speaking-order mandate of Section 250(6). Accordingly, the matter was remitted to be adjudicated strictly as per the amended law.
