Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's book results by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was without plausible reason. The Tribunal reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be denied on assets that were previously put to use and form part of a block of assets, even if not actively used in the current year. The concept of 'block of assets' under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, as amended, allows for depreciation on the written-down value of the block, and individual assets losing their identity.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate its claim of being a private beneficiary trust. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit necessary evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding finance costs, finding the assessee's explanation of loan restructuring satisfactory. However, for sales promotion expenses and depreciation on motor cars, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the AO for further verification and opportunity for the assessee to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that the windmill undertakings were commissioned after the appointed date of amalgamation and were not part of the transferred assets. Therefore, section 80IA(12A) was not attracted, and the revisionary proceedings were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT did not conduct his own inquiry and merely set aside the assessment to the AO for re-examination. This was contrary to guidelines, as the assessee had provided evidence for its claims. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration in Form No. 5 under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, indicating resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that Section 80G(5B) allows donations to religious institutions up to 5% of total income, provided the donee institution is also registered under Section 80G. Since the donation was within this limit and the donee trusts were registered, the disallowance was not sustainable.