ITAT Nagpur held that a 50-year lease is not a transfer under Section 2(47)(vi) where the transaction is only a lease and not an arrangement to transfer ownership.
ITAT held that a clerical error in selecting the wrong ITR column cannot defeat an otherwise valid deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The ITAT Nagpur held that an incorrect section code selected in Form 10AB was a technical and bona fide clerical mistake. Since the trust’s charitable activities and documents were found genuine, registration under Section 12AB could not be denied.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of 12A and 80G applications solely because of an incorrect statutory provision was unsustainable. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to allow rectification and decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
The ITAT held that the assessee’s exclusion of income based on the Place of Effective Management provisions involved a bona fide and debatable legal issue. It ruled that such a claim could not be treated as misreporting under Section 270A.
The ITAT Nagpur held that investments already disclosed in the balance sheet could not be treated as unexplained investments. It deleted the addition after finding that the Assessing Officer had added disclosed investments.
The ITAT ruled that deduction of TDS does not excuse failure to file an income tax return. The decision emphasizes that income discovered through departmental records can attract penalty for under-reporting under Section 270A.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. A fresh adjudication on merits was directed.
