ITAT Dehradun Judgments — September 2021

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding DG sets and diesel expenses due to the revenue's failure to comply with previous directions for spot verification. The addition on account of rice husk was also deleted as the revenue could not dispute its use as fuel. Disallowance of interest was not sustained due to sufficient own funds, and ad-hoc disallowances for freight expenses were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was wrongly passed in the name of the Power of Attorney holder, and the capital gains tax should have been levied in the hands of the actual owner. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding DG sets and diesel expenses due to the revenue's failure to comply with previous directions for spot verification. The addition on account of rice husk was also deleted as the revenue could not dispute its use as fuel. Disallowance of interest was not sustained due to sufficient own funds, and ad-hoc disallowances for freight expenses were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was wrongly passed in the name of the Power of Attorney holder, and the capital gains tax should have been levied in the hands of the actual owner. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application, as the treatment of donations and tax liabilities are assessment matters, not grounds for denying registration. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that AY 2012-13 was the 5th year of operation, and thus the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IC. This was based on the assessee's contention that business operations commenced in AY 2008-09, and the revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Linde AG, held that the consortium agreement did not constitute an AOP. The assessee had correctly offered its receipts to tax under Section 44BB of the Act.

The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not have any element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's brother's affidavit regarding a jointly sold agricultural land. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.