Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Nilesh Kulkarni Foundation. v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 524 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 80G: Donation-Wrong clause-Rejection solely on this basis was improper since an opportunity to rectify, or suo motu consideration under the correct clause, should have been provided. The presence of an object enabling application of funds outside India does not bar 80G registration if eligibility otherwise exists.[S. 12A, 80G(5), Form No 10AB]

Niravadya Foundation.CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 446 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 80G: Donation-Promoting education in Gujarat-Company not-for-profit-Rejection of application by CIT(E)-Order of rejection was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of CIT(E), with a direction to examine assessee’s application afresh on merits in accordance with law [S. 11,1 2, Companies Act, 2013, S. 8, Form 10AB, R. 11AA]

Foundation for Friendly Environment & Medical Awareness. v. CIT (E) (2025) 215 ITD 410 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 80G: Donation-Delay in filing application-Order of CIT(E) rejection of application was set aside and directed to treat application as having been filed under clause (iv)(B) of first proviso to section 80G(5)[S. 80G(5)(iv)(B)]

Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark v. CIT (2025) 215 ITD 213 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 80G: Donation-Rejection of application on the ground that the objects were religious and it had expended more than 5 per cent of its income on religious activities without considering the assessee’s explanation of the assessee-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT E) for fresh examination of submission and grant approval if found eligible. [S.80G(5), 80G(5B)]

Radhe Krushna Gau Sala Trust v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 32 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 80G: Donation-Mentioning wrong code-Rectified by filing another Form 10AB-Rejection application by CIT E) was set aside. [S.80G(5), Form No 10AB]

Prayatna Charitable Trust. v. CIT(E) (2025) 215 ITD 26 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Knowledge based spiritual programs-Promote high moral values and not rituals or religious practices-Rejection of application by CIT E) was set aside for re-examination. [S.80G(5)(iii)]

Ankur Fine Products. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 633 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Purchases-Mismatch between purchases in VAT returns and audited accounts-The difference was due to statutory compliance-Addition was deleted.

Lakhvir Kaur. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 39 (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Foreign travelling expenditure of daughter-borne by husband-Personal use of vehicle-Addition was deleted. [S. 132]

Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 222 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Additional evidence-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. [S. 147]

Renu Vinod Kaushal. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 12 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69A: Unexplained money-Cash deposits-Past disclosures and withdrawals-Addition was sustained to the extent of Rs 10 lakhs.[S.44AE]