https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288658 ITAT Visakhapatnam allowed the trust's appeal, directing the AO to compute income using the cash system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee. The tribunal held that refund of excess amount to a corporation did not constitute diversion of funds under section 13(2)(g), allowing exemption under section 11. However, the issue of accrued interest treatment was remitted back due to contradictory statements regarding accounting methods. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the underlying quantum addition was removed and the matter involved debatable legal interpretation rather than concealment of income. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288658 ITAT Visakhapatnam allowed the trust's appeal, directing the AO to compute income using the cash system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee. The tribunal held that refund of excess amount to a corporation did not constitute diversion of funds under section 13(2)(g), allowing exemption under section 11. However, the issue of accrued interest treatment was remitted back due to contradictory statements regarding accounting methods. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the underlying quantum addition was removed and the matter involved debatable legal interpretation rather than concealment of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288658