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 penalty under Section 271D could not be levied because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating such proceedings in the assessment order. The penalty was cancelled following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, both pnalties were cancelled.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions solely on the ground of absence of incriminating material without examining the evidence on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verification of the assessee’s claims.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
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.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed, making examination of the additions unnecessary.
