The issue was whether a charitable trust could lose exemption due to late uploading of Form 10B. ITAT held that Form 10B is procedural and delay alone cannot defeat exemption when audit was completed in time.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69C cannot be invoked when purchases are recorded in books, paid through banking channels, and sources are explained. Estimated profit addition of 12.5% was deleted.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that GST confiscation under Section 130 cannot precede the full procedure under Section 129, emphasizing statutory compliance in transit seizures.
The reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing non-prosecution. ITAT Delhi held that mere issuance of notices does not satisfy the requirement of effective hearing. The order was quashed and the matter sent back for fresh decision.
The issue was whether an unsecured loan could be treated as unexplained despite evidence on record. ITAT Delhi held that the appellate authority erred in ignoring uploaded documents and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based only on the Shah Commission report, without independent material or application of mind, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years after full disclosure was quashed, nullifying additions and penalties.
ITAT Delhi ruled that annual revenue-linked DTH licence fees are revenue expenses under Section 37, not capital under Section 35ABB, allowing full deduction for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that income assessment issues cannot prevent granting registration under section 12AB, directing the renewal for a trust already registered under 12AA.
The issue concerned an upward transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee fees charged to AEs. The Tribunal upheld the fee at 0.25% as arm’s length, citing prior ITAT precedents. The takeaway: valid comparable data and indemnification protect against such adjustments.
