Loading ITAT cases…
35 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s objections regarding transportation facilities and teacher salaries were beyond the scope of verification for Section 10(23C)(vi) approval. The primary focus should be on whether the institution is solely for educational purposes, and compliance with other laws is the responsibility of affiliating bodies like CBSE.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the assessee society are charitable and that it is a genuine trust. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that holding conferences and webinars to pursue medical education and provide medical relief, including free medical camps, amounts to charitable activities. The Tribunal noted that professional individuals, such as doctors, lawyers, and CAs, need to stay updated with new technologies, and acquiring such knowledge through conferences and webinars, whether free or at nominal charges, constitutes a charitable purpose. The Tribunal referred to the coordinate bench decision in 'Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable Trust' which stated that the Commissioner must satisfy himself about the objects and genuineness of activities at the time of registration. Furthermore, the Tribunal cited the Chhattisgarh High Court decision in 'CIT, Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Urology Society, Raipur', which was upheld by the Supreme Court, where a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found the order of the CIT(E) unsustainable and reversed it, directing the CIT(E) to grant registration to the appellant forthwith. The issue of whether the society was guided by principles of mutuality was implicitly decided against the revenue by approving the objects as charitable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked crucial admitted facts, including the AO's issuance of 133(6) notices and the assessee's admission of fictitious bills. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had made inquiries and received explanations from the assessees, and the revision was based on the Commissioner's opinion that further inquiries should have been made, rather than a finding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that running a school affiliated with CBSE is a charitable activity under Section 2(15) of the Act. Merely entering into a franchise agreement does not make the activity non-charitable, especially when the predominant purpose is imparting education.
The Tribunal held that an iPad is not a computer for depreciation purposes, and the higher depreciation rate is not applicable. The disallowance of a portion of foreign travel expenses due to missing vouchers was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the 12AA registration was unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant registration to the appellant, emphasizing that the scope of enquiry for 12AA registration is limited to the genuineness of activities and their consonance with the objects.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's power to refuse registration should not be based solely on the non-supply of information. It was deemed appropriate for the Commissioner to re-examine the application and consider any material the assessee could produce.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to disclose the source of investment of ₹48,22,450/-. The disclosure by the husband was not sufficient as it needed independent verification. Therefore, the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed him to decide the application for registration afresh. The CIT(E) is to verify the charitable nature of the objectives and the genuineness of activities, considering the provided evidence.
The Tribunal held that while part of the land was agricultural and eligible for exemption under Section 10(37), another part was a capital asset and its compensation was taxable as capital gains. The matter was remanded for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mere formality, lacking due application of mind and therefore illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were rendered non est and a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable by not bringing any material on record regarding fair market value. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had made factual errors regarding the trust's financial surplus and had incorrectly inferred that the trust could not file an application under Section 12AA while another application was pending. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash withdrawals from the bank should be considered to explain the subsequent deposits, as there was no evidence to suggest the withdrawn cash was spent elsewhere. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's agricultural income as reasonable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with directions to examine jurisdiction and the merits of the application after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's reasoning for denying registration was unsustainable, particularly regarding the shift between sections and the treatment of loans as donations, as these issues are better examined at the assessment stage. The Tribunal found the CIT's rejection contrary to jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying locus standi to the assessee for Section 12A registration simply because it was claiming exemption under Section 10(23C). However, it noted that the assessee must fulfill the conditions for either benefit.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous as it was based on inquiries and the assessee's explanations. The PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was quashed as it was not in accordance with law and the AO's order was a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in business and that the bank deposits represented business receipts. It applied an estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate of 8% on the turnover for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application ex-parte, especially considering the prevailing circumstances in Kashmir due to Article 370 abrogation and COVID-19 lockdowns. The Tribunal emphasized that at the stage of registration, the focus should be on the genuineness of the objects, not a deep investigation into activities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application. The treatment of admission fees, when considered in the context of overall receipts and charitable objects, did not render the society ineligible. The Tribunal also noted the procedural issue regarding the applicability of Section 12AB.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had made inquiries and received explanations from the assessees, and the revision was based on the Commissioner's opinion that further inquiries should have been made, rather than a finding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that SGPC's predominant purpose was managing properties and undertaking charitable activities like education and healthcare, not solely for the benefit of a particular religious community. The expenditure on religious activities was also found to be below the statutory threshold.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly denied approval. It found that the society had a dissolution clause, the lease deeds were not a ground for rejection, and non-compliance with the Right to Education Act was not a valid reason to withhold IT approval.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable by not bringing any material on record regarding fair market value. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the supplier whose statement formed the basis of the AO's action. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the supplier's sales were accepted by the revenue in his own assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was legally justified for all assessment years in question. It confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, finding no merit in the department's arguments.