SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B, especially considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, was a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12. Citing various High Court and ITAT rulings, the Tribunal considered the filing of Form 10B as directory, not mandatory.

SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Flat No. SP-2/102, Streling Springdale Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440013. [PAN: AACCG4441J] Vs ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati AayakarBhavan, Near DPS School, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440006. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Atal, CA Revenue by Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.02.2026 Date of

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessee's explanation regarding the cash in hand and the SBN deposits. However, it also noted that the AO's addition was largely based on suspicion and that the entire cash in hand was not necessarily in SBNs. Therefore, 50% of the addition was deleted.

SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Maha Academy of Pediatric Neurology, Plot No.7, Block Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, Guru Balawantsing Compound, Near Lokmat Building, Patwardhan Ground, Nagpur-440012. PAN : AAQAM 4626 H vs CIT (Exemptions), Pune Assessee Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pranav Ashtikar, CA Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 26.03.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration, the inquiry is limited to the objects of the trust and prima facie genuineness of activities, which were not doubted. It found the rejection based on insufficiency of evidence and bank transactions unjustified, as these fall under assessment proceedings, and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration.

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) because it was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented it from deducting tax at source. The tribunal followed the Kerala High Court's decision on a similar issue and stated that the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment cannot retrospectively fasten liability when the assessee was complying with judicial orders.

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) because it was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, which explicitly stated that LFC payments were not to be treated as income for TDS purposes during the pendency of the proceedings. Failure to comply with the High Court's order would have amounted to contempt, and therefore, the non-deduction did not constitute a default.

SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the applicability of the amended provisions of section 115BBE, which increased the tax rate from 30% to 60%, is debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal noted that judicial precedents, including decisions from the Madras High Court and ITAT benches, hold that the amendment is prospective and not applicable to Assessment Year 2017-18 for prior transactions.

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KMBLE (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted official documents and that the land parcels were indeed agricultural and situated beyond the prescribed distance from municipal limits, thus not a capital asset. The provisions of Section 194-IA were not applicable as the transaction did not involve a capital asset and the individual consideration for each buyer was below the threshold.

SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submission and supporting documents, which was a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after considering the submissions and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by rejecting the application solely based on the trust's constitution without a specific finding that the trust's income was actually applied for the benefit of a particular community. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(E) to re-examine the application of income.

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal noted that the disputed amount pertained to a property purchase, where the source of payment from both the assessee and his wife was explained. The confusion arose from incorrect reflection in the balance sheet, not from unexplained credit. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper verification, such as issuing notices under section 133(6) or verifying with other government authorities, before making the addition. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing customer details, and the AO had not adequately investigated the genuineness of the transactions.

SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the AO's premise for treating cash deposits as unexplained was incorrect, as cash sales were a regular feature of the business and the total cash sales in the current year were significantly lower than the previous year. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that individual payments within vouchers were below Rs. 20,000/-, but directed the AO to verify the authenticity and purpose of these expenses.

DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done after the principle of merger, based on a change of opinion, and without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court judgments emphasizing that reassessment is impermissible if based on a change of opinion or when the matter has already merged with the appellate order.

DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and occurred beyond the four-year period without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment orders were quashed.

MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the AO's order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Adjustments to book profit for CSR expenses are not permissible under section 115JB as per Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings. Similarly, disallowances under section 14A cannot be added to book profit for MAT calculation, especially when the assessee's tax liability is under MAT provisions.

DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The original assessment order had merged with the CIT(A)'s order, and the AO sought to reopen based on a change of opinion without any fresh material. Moreover, the reopening was initiated beyond the four-year period without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

The tribunal will dispose of the cross-appeals by a common order, addressing the common issues of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and additions under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) had confirmed the reopening but partly allowed the appeals.