The Tribunal distinguished between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry, holding that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desired further verification. Since the AO had examined the evidence, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 12AB registration merely because no expenditure was reflected in the financial statements was unsustainable without examining the trust’s actual activities. Fresh adjudication was directed after proper verification.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any specific infirmity in the assessee’s business expenditure before making a 10% ad hoc disallowance. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases could be taxed and affirmed a 2% estimation based on binding precedents in the assessee’s own earlier assessment years. The Revenue’s challenge to the reduced rate was rejected.
The ITAT held that where transactions with the Indian associated enterprise are at arm’s length, additional profit attribution to the alleged permanent establishment is unwarranted. The Tribunal therefore deleted the income attributed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal ruled that application software purchased independently from computer hardware is still covered under the specific depreciation entry for computer software. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow depreciation at 60% instead of 25%.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in the DRP’s order could not justify sustaining a ₹10 lakh addition. It held that the Assessing Officer should have implemented the DRP’s directions in substance and deleted the entire addition.
The Tribunal ruled that although CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37, eligible donations made to recognised institutions can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G. The assessee’s claim was allowed for eligible donations.
The Tribunal held that a 25% ad hoc disallowance of agricultural expenses was unjustified since the assessee furnished bills, vouchers, bank statements, and detailed expense records. It directed deletion of the entire disallowance.
Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without proof of statutory violations. The Tribunal followed binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and upheld its charitable status.
