Tribunal allowed assessee’s application to file additional evidence proving residential nature of the property. AO is directed to re-evaluate the claim afresh, granting opportunity for hearing and considering all relevant materials and case laws.
ITAT Pune held that application for registration u/s. 12A r.w.s 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for non-obtaining of prior permission of Charity Commissioner for loans since the same is procedural lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(E) set aside and registration u/s. 12A r.w.s. 12AB granted.
The ITAT Pune remanded a case where the first appellate authority dismissed an appeal ex-parte. taxpayers must be given a fair hearing before dismissal, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
The assessee’s claim of ₹98.4 lakh as selling expenses on property sale was disallowed by AO and upheld by CIT(A) without proper reasoning. ITAT remanded the case to ensure a detailed, reasoned examination of the submissions on merits.
The ITAT Pune held that applying presumptive taxation under Section 44AD to government-collected stamp duty and registration charges was unjustified. The case was remanded for fresh examination, considering subsequent years where identical transactions were accepted without additions.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that a cess deduction claim based on favourable jurisprudence cannot trigger penalty. Compliance with Section 155(18), including timely Form 69 filing, protected the assessee from under-reporting allegations.
Difference between ready reckoner and stamp duty value was wrongly treated as misreported income. Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication, allowing assessee to present sale deeds, purchase deed, and bank statements.
This case examines whether the PCIT could revise an assessment under section 263 when the AO allowed interest income deduction under section 80P. The ITAT ruled that the AO’s order was a plausible view, and both conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
The ITAT remitted the issue to the CIT(A), noting that exemption provisions were wrongly applied to a non-qualifying investor. The takeaway is that exemption claims in share premium cases must match statutory definitions and evidence.
