ITAT Jodhpur held that Section 37(1) business expenses cannot be disallowed without specific findings on genuineness. All appeals were allowed and disallowances deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding no evidence that cash rent payments exceeded ₹10,000 on any single day. The ruling underscores that Section 40A(3) cannot be invoked without establishing an actual breach of the prescribed limit.
The ITAT Jodhpur deleted the disallowance relating to delayed PF and ESI deposits, holding that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the EPFO’s relaxation measures had not been properly considered. The Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach in exceptional circumstances.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that deduction under Section 80GGC cannot be denied merely on allegations against a political party in the absence of evidence showing any benefit returned to the donor.
Assessments arising from searches conducted after 01.04.2021 must strictly comply with the reassessment framework under sections 147 and 148. Failure to adhere to statutory jurisdictional requirements, including mandatory approvals and satisfaction for use of third-party material, rendered the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
The Jodhpur ITAT condoned a 30-day delay in filing an income tax appeal after holding that the delay fell within the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exemption period. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) after considering replies and documents furnished later by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that absence of commenced activities is not a valid ground to deny registration where objects are charitable and proposed activities align with them.
ITAT held that CPC cannot deny charitable exemption under section 11 through section 143(1) adjustment without issuing prior intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after due opportunity.
