ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s finding that the trust was wholly religious was not based on a correct appreciation of facts. Reading the aims and objects in entirety, the Tribunal found that the trust's primary purpose was to serve humanity, and therefore, it was entitled to approval under Section 80G.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund for the entire period of delay as per Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act. It was decided that there was no delay attributable to the assessee in the proceedings, thus Section 244A(2) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund for the entire period of delay as per Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act. It was decided that there was no delay attributable to the assessee in the proceedings, thus Section 244A(2) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of write-off of stock needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, similar to a previous year's case. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the nature and impact of the expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Act settlement. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance under Section 14A on a proportionate basis was acceptable, subject to verification by the AO. It also allowed the claim for additional depreciation, following a coordinate bench decision on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that Form 10, filed during the assessment proceedings before completion, should have been considered by the Assessing Officer. The delay in filing Form 10 for AY 2016-17 could be condoned as per CBDT Circular No. 7/2018.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was part of a family arrangement and no sale consideration was paid by the assessee and co-purchasers. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention based on evidence and the principle of consistency with co-purchasers' cases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel moved an application to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that a chart substantiating surplus funds was presented by the assessee, but it was not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F even if the return of income was not filed within the due date, provided the investment was made within the stipulated time. The denial of the claim solely on the ground of delayed return filing was considered unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the settlement between the assessee and the department was issue-specific and not year-specific, applying to all years affected by the issue prior to the settlement. The non-disclosure of interest income was considered to be under a bonafide belief.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the professional expenses as revenue expenditure. The expenses were considered allowable as they were incurred for the expansion of the existing business, supported by various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit and bank confirmations, to substantiate the source of funds. The AO had not doubted the contents of these documents, and the assessee's request to summon the concerned parties was not acceded to.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by going beyond the ITAT's directions and denying registration based on the donation issue, which was already decided. Since no adverse findings were made regarding the charitable activities, registration should have been granted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind and initiated reassessment proceedings based on suspicion rather than a well-founded belief. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were against the principles of natural justice and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that it occurred due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and not due to any fault of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of being heard and that the matter should be restored back to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order. The assessee was directed to ensure full participation before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders were not in accordance with law as they were not speaking orders and did not provide a fair opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the orders were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts solely on the basis of electricity consumption variation is not sustainable, especially when a committee report indicated a 15% variation is acceptable. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request for cross-examination was not addressed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the AO to levy late fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, the AO could not charge late fees for periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the return was filed or processed after that date.