Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, which is neither manually nor digitally signed, is invalid. This defect violates statutory mandates and is not curable, rendering the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings void. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions on similar matters.
The tribunal held that the second reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked tangible material. Furthermore, the addition of the entire bank deposits without considering the nature of transactions and without applying the peak credit principle was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was purely technical and procedural, as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to rectify the defect of filing under the wrong clause. The Tribunal emphasized a substantive approach over a hyper-technical one in matters of charitable trust registration.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) should be allowed, following precedents that denial of deduction cannot be based on subsequent cancellation of approval or general reports without specific evidence. The addition under Section 69C was also deleted due to lack of specific evidence.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was purely technical and procedural, as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to rectify the defect of filing under the wrong clause. The Tribunal emphasized a substantive approach over a hyper-technical one in matters of charitable trust registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as it is a developer of infrastructure facilities, specifically railway signaling systems. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not considered the merits of the application. Given the assessee's willingness to resubmit all necessary documents and the fact that the CIT(E) had not examined the case on its merits, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 263 was barred by limitation and lacked proper reasons for invocation. Therefore, the revision order was considered without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the land was agricultural, situated beyond municipal limits, and met the exemption criteria under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration/approval, only a prima facie satisfaction of the objects and genuineness of activities is required. The CIT(E) had not conducted a thorough inquiry and had failed to bring on record conclusive evidence to disprove the charitable nature of the trust's activities or its alleged benefit to a specific community. Deficiencies noted by the CIT(E) should be addressed during assessment proceedings, not lead to outright rejection at this stage.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 263 was barred by limitation and lacked proper reasons for invocation. Therefore, the revision order was considered without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 263 was barred by limitation and lacked proper reasons for invocation. Therefore, the revision order was considered without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration/approval, only a prima facie satisfaction of the objects and genuineness of activities is required. The CIT(E) had not conducted a thorough inquiry and had failed to bring on record conclusive evidence to disprove the charitable nature of the trust's activities or its alleged benefit to a specific community. Deficiencies noted by the CIT(E) should be addressed during assessment proceedings, not lead to outright rejection at this stage.