The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that non-deliberate delay caused by administrative difficulties should not bar access to justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the appeal was revived for merit-based adjudication.
The ITAT held that cancellation of provisional registration merely for non-compliance with notices is unsustainable when lapses are not deliberate. The case was remanded to allow the applicant a fair opportunity to establish genuineness of activities.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
The ITAT held that a deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form 10DA was partially invisible on the tax portal. The issue was remanded for limited verification now that the complete form is available.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed as time-barred should be revived when delay was caused by a tax consultant. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the cases for merits-based adjudication.
The issue involved denial of charitable registration citing delay and lack of evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee deserved a final opportunity to substantiate activities before a fresh decision is taken.
The Tribunal held that denial of CSR expenditure under Section 37 does not bar deduction under Section 80G. It ruled that eligible donations forming part of CSR must be examined under Chapter VI-A independently. The key takeaway is that CSR-linked donations can still qualify for tax relief if statutory conditions are met.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on statements recorded during a third-party survey under section 133A. In absence of independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or cross-examination, such statements have no evidentiary value.
While restoring the appeals, the ITAT directed expeditious disposal and warned against avoidable adjournments. The key takeaway is that condonation is granted to enable justice, not to prolong litigation.
