The Tribunal upheld that textile sales were not genuine, sustaining commission estimation at 3% of turnover. Additions under section 68 were remitted to the Assessing Officer due to lack of documentary evidence.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed all expense disallowances and additions for unexplained share capital, premium, and warrants. The assessee failed to prove genuineness or creditworthiness, and identity alone was insufficient under section 68.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under section 68 cannot stand in an unabated year without incriminating material from a search. External reports or third-party statements were insufficient, and the full addition was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai restored exemption under section 11(1)(a) despite a clerical mistake in Form 10B. The original form was timely filed, and the revised form only corrected the error, ensuring the trust’s substantive rights were protected.
Since the 14A disallowance was already struck down on the ground that no exempt income was earned, the Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A had no legal basis. It ruled that penalty cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition ceases to exist. The key takeaway is that penalty collapses automatically when its foundation is eliminated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for a long delay, noting negligence and absence of due care. late appeals require concrete justification, not assumptions or later legal advice.
ITAT held that non-receipt of statutory notices by an NRI constituted reasonable cause, restoring the reassessment and deleting penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c). penalties cannot survive when non-compliance arises from legitimate ignorance.
The Tribunal held that deciding the appeal ex parte violated natural justice and remanded the FTC dispute for full reconsideration. appellate orders must not be passed without proper opportunity of hearing.
ITAT remanded the rejection of 12A registration after finding that incorrect clause selection was a clerical mistake. substantive eligibility and genuine charitable activities outweigh technical errors.
ITAT Mumbai held that issue of whether the land is an agricultural land or not needs more verification since department has not tested required conditions as prescribed u/s. 2(14)(iii). Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO.
