The Tribunal held that additions not proposed in the original draft assessment order and unsupported by DRP directions could not be sustained. It reaffirmed that the statutory process under Section 144C must be followed before making prejudicial variations.
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied merely because a co-operative society has nominal or associate members recognised under the applicable State law. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The ITAT Raipur held that an application for final approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected solely because it was filed belatedly. It remanded the matter after directing the CIT(Exemption) to examine the trust’s genuineness and statutory conditions on merits.
ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the genuineness of the purchases. It deleted the estimated addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made where the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. It upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that excess application of income by a charitable trust can be adjusted against subsequent year’s income if supported by the trust’s books and records. It remanded the matter to the AO only for factual verification.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the return of income and Form No. 10DA were filed within the prescribed due date of 30.11.2018. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80JJAA.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely describing a transaction as a loan by one party and a purchase advance by the other could not justify revision under Section 263. As the source of funds was explained and the amount was refunded, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
The Tribunal held that Schedule-I of ITR-7 applies only to amounts accumulated under Section 11(2) and not to deemed application under Explanation (1) to Section 11(1). It deleted the addition after finding that the lower authorities had incorrectly interpreted the ITR instructions.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive where the show cause notice fails to specify the exact statutory clause invoked. It ruled that such a vague notice violates the requirement of informing the assessee of the precise charge, leading to deletion of the penalty.
