Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted the required audit report and had not claimed deduction under Section 11(1)(d). The corpus donation was correctly transferred to the balance sheet and taken into computation of income, and the assessee had exercised the option under Explanation 2 to Section 11(1).
The Tribunal held that the purchases pertaining to a previous year, though settled in the current year, should have been accounted for in the earlier year based on the mercantile system of accounting. However, it allowed the sales promotion expenses, considering them as business expenditure incurred for the company's benefit during religious festivals.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous decisions in favour of the assessee for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since confirmations were furnished before the CIT(A) and no major defects were found, the purchases could not be treated as bogus, especially when sales from these purchases were accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation, following its own prior decisions. For unrealized sale proceeds, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow prior ITAT directions allowing for rectification upon realization. The issue of interest on deposits/staff loans was decided against the assessee, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence including loan confirmations, bank statements, and repaid the loan through banking channels, thus discharging the initial onus under Section 68.