The Tribunal held that the trust’s exemption claim must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s AUDA judgment, which redefined rules for general public utility entities. The key issue is whether fee-based activities exceed the statutory limits under section 2(15).
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
ITAT held that the assessee’s long-standing change of address constituted reasonable cause for late filing and remanded the case for merit-based adjudication.
The case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
The capital-gains addition of ₹4.02 crore arose from 143(1) but was included in the 143(3) scrutiny assessment. ITAT directed CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring the assessee’s rights during scrutiny are protected.
The AO changed the charge from bogus payments to 69A ‘Unaccounted Sales’ without issuing a fresh notice, denying the assessee a proper hearing. ITAT remanded the matter for verification of documentary evidence including invoices, GST returns, and e-way bills.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted Rs. 10.84 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had properly documented loans and repayments. Key takeaway: Genuineness of transactions with third-party entities can neutralize claims of unexplained credits.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
