The Tribunal ruled that appellate authorities must adjudicate each legal and factual ground raised in appeal. A mere remand to the AO without deciding jurisdictional issues violates statutory requirements.
The appeals were rejected without examining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that appellate remedies cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities and restored the cases.
The issue was whether daily pooja and religious ceremonies qualify as charitable activities. ITAT held that worship-centric activities are purely religious and do not meet the statutory test for charitable registration.
The AO disallowed a weighted deduction relying only on a subsequent CBDT list. ITAT ruled that factual verification and proof of bogus donation are mandatory before denying the claim.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
The issue was whether delayed filing of Form 10B bars exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal held the delay to be procedural and sustained exemption since audit was completed and report filed during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a 3,134-day delay deserved condonation where the assessee proved non-service of the assessment order. The key takeaway is that absence of service constitutes sufficient cause and justice cannot be denied on limitation alone.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance of interest paid on housing loan is upheld since assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence like loan sanction letter or bank certificate. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that provision of interest on loan from state government is ascertained liability and hence couldn’t be disallowed under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
