Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the denial of registration by the CIT(E) was justified and did not require any interference. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's trust was established after the commencement of the amended Act, and its objects are exclusively for the benefit of the Jain community. This constitutes a specific violation under clause (d) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act, which is applicable to charitable institutions created or established after the commencement of the Act for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from the cited judgments. The ratio of *Bayath Kutuchhi Dasha Oswal Jain Mahajan Trust* was held not applicable because the assessee's trust's objects are solely for the religious activities of the Jain Community, unlike the trust in that case which had broader public benefit objects. The *Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust* judgment was deemed not applicable as it pertained to the old provisions of Section 12A, whereas the present case deals with the amended Section 12AB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee trust, being purely for the religious activities of a particular community, is not entitled to registration due to the specified violation under Explanation (d) of Section 12AB(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the negligence of the assessee's tax professional. It was held that the assessee, being a farmer unaware of tax intricacies, should not be penalized for the professional's fault. The matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while Form 10B is mandatory, the assessee had taken steps to rectify the delay by invoking Section 154. The audit report was obtained before the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to take Form 10B on record and rectify the order.
The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the reconciliation statement regarding disallowance under Section 14A. An opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Considering that the assessee had provided details and the previous non-compliance was due to an income tax practitioner's fault, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the land was effectively owned by the partnership firm, with the assessee acting as a name-lender. Therefore, there was no actual transfer of development rights by the assessee, and Section 50C was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified. The assessee had provided detailed explanations and evidence, including bank statements, which the AO had considered and accepted, taking a plausible view. A subsequent opinion by the AO during Section 263 proceedings cannot be the basis for invoking it.
The Tribunal held that interest income from nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, it remanded the issue of allowing proportionate expenditure under Section 57 for re-verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the LC discounting charges were incurred for business purposes and the advances were for purchase of material, supported by evidence. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justifiable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be genuine. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without verifying notice service. The matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the repayment in cash was due to the practice of NBFCs demanding a cash component for EMI repayment in case of default. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's actions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had sufficient stock and that the sales were recorded and offered for taxation. The AO's observations regarding free stock undervaluation were also found to be not justifiable.