The Tribunal held that issues like capitation fee or misuse of funds are assessment matters, not grounds for denying registration under Section 12AA. The ruling confirms that the Commissioner must limit inquiry to objects and genuineness of activities.
Tribunal relied on Supreme Court’s Checkmate ruling to uphold disallowance of delayed employees’ PF/ESI contribution under Section 143(1), dismissing the HUF’s appeal.
The Tribunal allowed a 193-day delayed appeal, emphasizing that non-deliberate delay should not bar hearing on merits. The assessee can now present his case and have the appeal adjudicated substantively.
Assessee proved long-term capital gains of ₹1 crore from Mishkafin Finance shares via broker notes, bank statements, and STT-paid transactions. Addition under section 69A was deleted due to lack of evidence.
ITAT holds that ignoring a valid online reply and supporting records vitiates reassessment; AO must first verify whether deposits were already in books before taxing. Key takeaway: non-consideration of evidence makes additions unsustainable.
ITAT Pune ruled that cash deposits during the demonetization period were in Rs. 100 and Rs. 2,000 notes, reversing prior additions made under section 68.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the appeal could not be dismissed in limine. CIT(A) must issue a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s turnover before applying corporate tax. If turnover for FY 2018-19 is under ₹400 crore, the tax rate must be computed at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2010-11, noting that AO failed to verify agricultural income and bank deposits properly. CIT(A) also overlooked key evidence. The case is remitted for fresh assessment to ensure proper scrutiny.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal despite Supreme Court–mandated limitation extensions. COVID-19–related delays must be liberally condoned when reasonable cause is shown.
