ITAT directed the CIT(E) to grant Section 12AB registration, ruling that mere land purchase is a preparatory step and not the commencement of charitable activities, the cancellation of a trust’s provisional registration, stating that technical errors and land acquisition cannot justify denying charitable status.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
NCLAT Delhi dismisses appeals by personal guarantors against Bank of Baroda, upholding NCLT’s direction for the bank to allow inspection of lending documents.
CESTAT Bangalore ruled Section 113(h)(i) of Customs Act applies only if goods are entered for export. Shortage due to EOU’s clerical error not liable for confiscation. citing a clerical error and not a deliberate mis-declaration or illicit DTA clearance.
ITAT restored a trust’s 80G approval rejection, directing the CIT(E) to accept the application based on a CBDT circular extending the filing deadline and allowing clause correction. The ITAT ruled that a charitable trust can correct an error in its 80G application and confirmed that the filing deadline was extended by a subsequent CBDT circular.
CESTAT confirmed a Service Tax demand, ruling that a service provider’s failure to explain a large discrepancy between ITR and ST-3 returns justifies the tax liability.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2020-21, ruling they were issued without proper statutory jurisdiction under the framework of Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that procedural non-compliance in the faceless scheme voids the notices, while granting Revenue liberty to revive the case post-Supreme Court verdict.
The High Court allowed the petition, ruling that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction because they contravened the procedural requirements of Sec. 151A of the Income Tax Act. This key takeaway reiterates the requirement for strict procedural adherence in the faceless regime, while preserving the Revenues right to revive the case post-Apex Court clarity.
The High Court found no mistake apparent on record to warrant rectification under Section 254, holding that the Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Section 80JJA deduction was neither perverse nor erroneous. The ruling clarifies that Section 254 cannot be used to re-argue the quantum or correctness of a deduction, especially one accepted historically.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
