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.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte capital gains addition could not be sustained where the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity. Considering comparable treatment in a related case, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that a trust cannot be faulted for missing a statutory deadline when compliance was factually impossible. The rejection of 80G renewal was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
ITAT Pune held that a claim of agricultural income cannot be accepted without supporting records. Complete non-compliance at all stages justified treating the receipts as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that inadvertent omission of claiming advance tax does not bar interest under Section 244A. Authorities cannot withdraw interest through Section 154 rectification for such mistakes.
