Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that civil structure and electrical fittings are part and parcel of the windmill and eligible for higher depreciation, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, the claim for set off of losses as business loss was dismissed as it was covered by a previous decision against the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for ESI employee contribution and deduction under Section 80IB(11). It also allowed depreciation on the cold storage building, holding it as 'plant'. However, it dismissed grounds related to the subsidy's adjustment from the cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when the asset sold is part of the stock-in-trade and income is offered under the head 'business'. Such provisions apply only to capital assets.
The Tribunal found that there was no clear finding on the source of capital in the proprietory concern and the savings bank account. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum appeal were deleted by the ITAT, there was no basis for sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It further ruled that depreciation is admissible on assets used for charitable purposes, as Section 11(6) was prospective. Payments for salary, foreign travel, and contributions were considered valid applications of income.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is admissible to a charitable trust under Section 32, even if capital expenditure was already allowed under Section 11. The amendment to Section 11(6) was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee rightly chose the assessment year 2008-09 as the initial year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA as it was the first year of profit for the project. Prior year losses, already adjusted against other business income, could not be notionally set off against the profits of the eligible business.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the assessee's claim that the cash deposits belonged to the firm and were used for its expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the assessment to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but reduced the trading addition to Rs. 50,000. For the other expenses, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of granting registration under Sections 12AA and 80G to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration. This was to allow for a fresh decision after considering the latest audited accounts and the case laws relied upon by the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly invoked certain provisions and failed to examine the assessee's books of accounts before withdrawing the exemption. It found no violation of Section 10(23C)(vi) and directed the continuation of the granted approval.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order denying registration. The society's activities were not considered genuine public charitable purposes, as they appeared to benefit family members and lacked the essence of charity.
The Tribunal noted that as per a CBDT circular, departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since this appeal did not fall under any exceptions, it was not maintainable.