ITAT Amritsar Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely based on non-submission of certain details due to technical issues. The scope of inquiry at the registration stage is limited to the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities, not a detailed examination of fund application.

The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of books was based on the original return, while the revised return should have been considered. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 5% net profit rate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing them within the limitation period due to the erroneous advice of their counsel. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing them within the limitation period due to the erroneous advice of their counsel. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing them within the limitation period due to the erroneous advice of their counsel. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing them within the limitation period due to the erroneous advice of their counsel. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO had not afforded an opportunity of hearing before making a lump-sum disallowance. While the vouchers were not complete, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, reduced the disallowance to 2% of the total expenses.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of diligence but, considering the CIT(Exemptions) did not decide on merits, remanded the case. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in making an addition on account of peak credit when the AO had already considered the deposits as business receipts and estimated profit. The Tribunal allowed the addition of estimated profit and deleted the addition on account of peak credit.