Loading ITAT cases…
592 orders · Page 9 of 12
The Tribunal found that the assessee had obtained registration under the RPT Act subsequently and had made substantial compliance regarding the genuineness of activities. The CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the submissions and documents.
The Tribunal held that even if there is a delay in filing Form 10B, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied if the report is available at the time of processing the return. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption claim.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before making a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid registrations under Sections 12A and 12AB, which dispelled doubts about the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications (for 12AB registration and 80G approval) back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering subsequent events and a relevant CBDT circular.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the application for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to furnish the now-obtained Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and other required documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to comply with the queries.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one effective opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications for fresh consideration. The assessee was given an opportunity to submit the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and other relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both the application for registration under section 12AB and the application for approval under section 80G to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the applications due to the assessee's withdrawal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file fresh applications.
The Tribunal held that the applications should not be rendered infructuous due to a procedural error in selecting the wrong clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the applications under the appropriate provisions.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AB, classifying the assessee's activities as 'Charitable' by the same authority, significantly weakened the basis of the rejection. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration was treated as curable, and the religious expenditure was not quantified to exceed statutory limits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion. The issue regarding receipts was already examined and accepted during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the applications should not be rendered infructuous due to a procedural error in selecting the wrong clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the applications under the appropriate provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to verify the newly obtained Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and the genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) as it was under a judicial restraint from recovering from employees. The penalty under Section 271C was also quashed as it was consequential to the primary order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(E)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee now possesses the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, the earlier rejection was not justified. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA/12AB and reconsider the 80G approval.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal related to the rejected registration as withdrawn due to the subsequent grant of registration. For the 80G approval, the tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant approval, considering the assessee's accepted charitable status and registration.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the applications for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the newly obtained registration and other submitted documents before deciding the applications.
The Tribunal held that the new registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and the other submitted documents require examination by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application on a technical ground was improper, especially since the assessee had obtained provisional registration. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to make fresh compliance and be heard.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the employer, M/s Rajlakshmi Industries, had offered this amount as additional income in a settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, the addition at the hands of the assessee could not survive.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee obtaining the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and the previous compliance not being properly considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be credible. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents, and 80G approvals were made consequential to 12A/12AB registration.
The Tribunal held that the dissolution clause adequately ensured that trust funds would be used for charitable purposes and that sufficient material regarding the trust's activities was available. Therefore, the rejection of the registration was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to verify new evidence, including Rajasthan Public Trust registration, and grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any adjudication on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal related to the registration rejection as withdrawn due to the subsequent grant of registration. For the 80G approval, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant approval, considering the assessee's accepted charitable status and registration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested, given the filing of a fresh application and no objection from the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure, stating that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also upheld the deletion of unverifiable expenses, noting the disallowance was ad hoc without specific deficiencies. Finally, it upheld the deletion of addition for old currency deposits, finding the source of funds was explained by business receipts and audited accounts.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of exemption because the assessee failed to fulfill the condition of receiving at least 50% of total receipts as government grants. The assessee also failed to represent its case despite multiple opportunities.
The Tribunal held that profit from captive consumption of electricity qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA, citing Supreme Court decisions. It also deleted the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS, finding it unreasonable to expect production of numerous parties after a significant time lapse.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the application due to its withdrawal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application for registration.
The Tribunal held that while exemption under Section 11 was not available without Section 12AA registration, the entire receipts could not be treated as income. The assessee's income should be computed as an Association of Persons (AOP) applying commercial principles.
The Tribunal held that since no variation was made to the declared income, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the penalty order was vitiated by a non-application of mind as the show cause notice did not specify the exact limb under Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was being imposed.
The Tribunal treated the appeal challenging the rejection of 12AB registration as infructuous due to subsequent grant of registration. For the 80G approval, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant it, considering the 12AB registration was granted.
The Tribunal considered the subsequent grant of registration under section 12AB as making one appeal infructuous. For the other appeal concerning 80G approval, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant approval, subject to other conditions.
The Tribunal held that since the grievance raised by the assessee was redressed by the subsequent order of the Assessing Officer, the appeal had become infructuous.