ITAT Rajkot Judgments — March 2019

The tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was just and proper. The assessee is not entitled to deduction if the employees' contribution is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. As the case did not fall under any exceptions, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner did not provide specific instances to prove the trust's activities were predominantly religious. Considering the trust had consistently received 80G(5) registration on the same objects since 1993, the Tribunal applied the rule of consistency and reversed the CIT's order.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to cash purchases exceeding Rs. 20,000, finding contradictory statements from the assessee. For inflated purchases, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the gross profit at 6% of the turnover instead of disallowing the entire purchases.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, which allows retrospective application of registration benefits for pending assessment proceedings, is applicable. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal against the Assessing Officer's order had been allowed by the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed against the Section 263 order was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal. This was subject to the condition that the assessee pays a fine of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax department.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based solely on Form 16A without pointing out specific defects in the assessee's submissions. The assessee's appeal regarding the bad debt write-off was allowed, reversing the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based solely on Form 16A without pointing out specific defects in the assessee's submissions. The assessee's appeal regarding the bad debt write-off was allowed, reversing the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F is allowable even if the property is purchased in the name of the spouse, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. However, the disallowance of sales tax penalty was upheld, and the disallowance of travel expenses was sustained due to lack of evidence.