Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from cooperative banks, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on limitation was also implicitly set aside by allowing the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision which held that cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on income earned from investments in cooperative banks.
The Tribunal found it undisputed that the locker was jointly held and the assessee consistently stated the jewellery belonged to her non-resident daughter. Given the daughter's residence in the UK, it was impractical for her to operate the locker. The mere operation of the joint locker by the assessee did not automatically imply ownership of the jewellery. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and should be deleted.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application due to lack of specific reasons. Regarding the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal did not explicitly address each legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the ex-parte order, jurisdiction, or validity of the assessment. However, the Tribunal did consider the estimation of profit. While the AO had estimated the profit at 5% of the gross turnover and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed this, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, directed that the profit be estimated at 2.5% of the gross turnover. The Tribunal did not provide detailed reasoning for this modification, other than stating it was in the interest of justice. The operative direction was to modify the estimation of profit. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, considering previous decisions in similar cases, found that the disallowance for bogus sub-contract expenses should be restricted to 12.5% of the sub-contract amount. The original addition by the AO was 25%, which was reduced to 16% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal further reduced this to 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) by the CIT(E) was not sustainable due to a simple mistake in quoting the relevant sub-clause. Following the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust (ITA No.1928/Ahd/2024), the Tribunal found that such a mistake is not fatal to the application's validity. The reasoning was that the intention of the assessee was clear, and the error was a clerical one. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters back to his file. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not misused the opportunity given for hearing and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the issue. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in appreciating the facts by ignoring the assessee's role as a Bank Mitra and the details provided regarding the cash deposits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal, relying on a Co-ordinate Bench decision, held that a simple mistake in quoting the sub-clause of Section 80G is not fatal to render an application invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six cases and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to explain the source of the cash deposits as coming from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. The Department failed to provide material showing the withdrawals were utilized for other purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable. Regarding Section 14A, it was noted that the issue was already examined by the AO and deleted by the CIT(A), and disallowance cannot be made for investments in a partnership firm. For the compensation payment, it was considered a contractual payment for business purposes and not a penalty, thus not disallowable under Sections 28 to 44DA.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice was not sustainable as reasons were provided and the assessee had not responded to the show cause notice. However, for the merits of the case, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for proper verification of additional evidence.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without admission and that the assessee had not complied with the Assessing Officer's requests. To ensure justice, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, directing the assessee to comply with notices, failing which penalty proceedings could be initiated.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessees' appeals involved common grounds and identical issues. The Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust vs. CIT (ITA No.1928/Ahd/2024), dated 17/01/2025. In that case, the co-ordinate bench held that a simple mistake of quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv) of Section 80G was not fatal to treat the application as invalid. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application de novo. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six appeals. The matters were restored to the CIT(E)'s file with a direction to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Assessees. The appeal in ITA No.1930/Ahd/2024 also involved a delay of 11 days in filing, which was condoned as bona fide. All six appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was not sustainable. Following the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust, the Tribunal found that a simple mistake in quoting a clause of Section 80G was not fatal to the application's validity. The reasoning was that such an error should not invalidate the entire application, and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify or have their application considered afresh. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six cases and restored the matters back to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) by the CIT(E) was not justified. Following the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust Dakor (ITA No.1928/Ahd/2024), the Tribunal found that a simple mistake of quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv) of Section 80G of the Income-tax Act was not fatal to the application. The reasoning was that such a mistake should not invalidate the application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six cases. The matters were restored back to the file of the CIT(E), who was directed to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was not justified. Following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust (ITA No. 1928/Ahd/2024), the Tribunal found that a mistake in quoting the relevant clause of Section 80G (specifically, quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv)) is not fatal to the application and should not render it invalid. The reasoning was that such a mistake is a "simple mistake" and not a fundamental flaw. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications afresh. The ratio decidendi is that minor clerical or quoting errors in statutory references should not lead to the outright rejection of an application for approval under Section 80G, especially when provisional approval was granted. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for de novo consideration, granting the assessees an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit the required details and explanations. The Tribunal held that allowing the AO to examine these submissions would not prejudice the revenue and would facilitate a decision on the merits as per the provisions of the Act, contingent on the assessee's prompt compliance without unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the details and submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decision.
The Tribunal, relying on its own previous orders and jurisdictional High Court judgments, held that the interest received by the co-operative society from other co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The main ground of appeal regarding this deduction was allowed, while Ground 3 (interest on IT refund) was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the transaction can be taxed, not the entire turnover. The CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts and restricted the addition to 20% based on evidence of cash return.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, supported by the Revenue's no objection, and thus dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission of a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-2024 and the filing of Form-2, indicating a settlement of the dispute. The Revenue did not object to this withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the original assessment or the CIT(A)'s order, as the appeal was withdrawn before adjudication. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal addressed the core issue of whether additions under Section 153A are limited to incriminating material found during a search. It held that Section 153A requires the AO to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years preceding the search. The Tribunal noted that while Chapter XIV-B (block period assessment) has specific provisions regarding evidence, Section 153A does not explicitly stipulate that additions must be based solely on seized material. However, the Tribunal also considered the CBDT's instructions advising against obtaining confessions during search operations without credible evidence and the principle that disclosures made before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) cannot be used as evidence by the AO if the settlement proceedings are aborted or if the information is confidential. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- based on the ITSC disclosure, the Tribunal held that the AO had not brought any evidence or made any inquiry to substantiate this income. Merely offering the amount before the ITSC does not automatically convert it into undisclosed income for the purpose of Section 153A proceedings. Relying on the case of Anantnadh Constructions and Farms (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made solely on the basis of income suo-moto offered before the ITSC, especially when the AO has not conducted independent inquiry. Therefore, this addition was not upheld. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections on this point. The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed, and the cross-objections of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to short notice intervals and issues accessing the e-portal. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings were restored and, in the interest of justice, set aside the penalty proceedings to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter on its merits.
The Tribunal noted the request for withdrawal of the appeals due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. A liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of appeals if the VSV Scheme benefit could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if they fail to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for any bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that milk cans and equipment qualify as 'plant and machinery' for depreciation purposes, following previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee's activities were charitable (education) or commercial in nature, and the treatment of specific research funds, were identical to earlier assessment years. These issues were restored back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal filed by the Department. Regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal noted that the issue was accepted by the Department in subsequent assessment proceedings for AY 2019-20, where the AO passed an order without variation to the returned income or proposed SCN grounds. Therefore, the addition was liable to be deleted. For depreciation and additional depreciation on milk cans and equipment, the Tribunal relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, which held that milk cans are part of 'plant' and eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal. The issue of additional depreciation on new machinery was also dismissed as the Department's grounds were not substantiated and the CIT(A)'s order was found to be without infirmity. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted the request for withdrawal of the appeals due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. A liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of appeals if the VSV Scheme benefit could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed summarily without adjudicating on merits and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the assessment order was passed under one PAN (AADCR8817L) and the appeal was adjudicated under a different PAN (AACCR7250E). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the assessment order was passed under one PAN (AADCR8817L) and the appeal was adjudicated under a different PAN (AACCR7250E). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in classifying expenses for cultural preservation and promotion as religious expenses. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh verification of actual expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-compliance with notices, not on merits. Since the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not undertaken, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that milk cans and equipment qualify as 'plant and machinery' for depreciation purposes, following previous ITAT decisions.
The ITAT restored both appeals to the CIT (Exemptions) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit all necessary documents and prove the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal directed the assessee to comply promptly, stating that further non-compliance would allow the CIT(E) to decide based on available records.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s observation that only receipts amounting to Rs. 2,04,767/- were relevant to the assessment year, based on an in-depth analysis of documents and a remand report. Regarding the peak credit, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the addition should be restricted to Rs. 16,93,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The reasoning for this agreement is not explicitly detailed beyond stating agreement with the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction is to restrict the addition to Rs. 16,93,000/-.
The ITAT restored both appeals to the CIT (Exemptions) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit all necessary documents and prove the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal directed the assessee to comply promptly, stating that further non-compliance would allow the CIT(E) to decide based on available records.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. Regarding the Rs. 27,76,460/- deposit, the Tribunal noted that the assessee recorded these as sales in audited books of account, and no discrepancies were found by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal held that failure to provide PAN alone cannot be the sole reason to treat sales as unexplained money, especially when Aadhaar details were submitted. The AO did not attempt independent verification under Section 133(6) during remand. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents like Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT, Durga Fire Work v. ITO, and Shivam Industries v. ACIT, stating that amounts credited in business books are presumed business receipts unless proven otherwise by the Revenue, and audited books cannot be rejected solely for lack of PAN. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the genuineness of parties whose Aadhaar details were provided and conduct independent inquiries. Regarding the Rs. 2,50,000/- deposit, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding household savings and CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017. However, since the AO had not examined financial records, past withdrawals, or spending patterns, this issue was also restored to the AO for reconsideration, directing examination of past cash withdrawals, financial history, and savings patterns, and ensuring CBDT guidelines are followed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted bank statements to support cash sales from the grocery business, and also mentioned cash withdrawals. The Tribunal felt that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to present all facts regarding the source of deposits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable in law. The doctrine of merger applies, and once the CIT(A) deleted the addition, the assessment order merged with the appellate order, rendering Section 263 inapplicable. The PCIT acknowledged the deletion but proceeded with revision, which was contrary to judicial discipline.
The Tribunal found significant procedural lapses. Firstly, the original assessment was under PAN ABQPR2834L, while the CIT(A) order was passed under PAN AIVPR8944H. The appeal filed under one PAN was verified using another PAN-linked Aadhaar, raising concerns about jurisdictional implications and lack of proper verification. Secondly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative conceded that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to first determine the correct PAN, take steps for de-duplication, and hear both appeals (under ABQPR2834L and AIVPR8944H) together to avoid conflicting decisions. The CIT(A) must adjudicate the appeal on merits, addressing the validity of the Section 148 notice, the correct assessment year for the investment, and the applicability of Section 69A, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.33,83,370/- on account of peak credit in other ledgers, considering that only undisclosed income, not gross receipts, can be taxed. The AO's initial addition of Rs.196.80 crores on miscellaneous credit entries was not justified. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs.13,14,035/- in respect of receipts from family members, finding it to be protective in nature. The Revenue failed to controvert these findings. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach logical, rational, and consistent with the Department's stand in earlier years. Therefore, the Revenue's ground of appeal in ITA No. 1184/Ahd/2024 (AY 2021-22) was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on other grounds is summarized in the table: Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 1138-1146/Ahd/2024) were Partly Allowed, and Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 1148-1155/Ahd/2024) were Dismissed. The issue of negative peak balance was to be considered in concerned years.
The Tribunal held that the approach of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,83,370/- on account of peak credit in other ledgers was logical and rational, aligning with the department's stand in earlier years. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 13,14,035/- in respect of receipts from family members, as it was found to be protective in nature. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the entire credit in miscellaneous transactions could not be considered as income and that only undisclosed income, not gross receipts, is taxable. The AO's addition of Rs. 196.80 crores was not justified. The CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition to the extent of undisclosed income emanating from undisclosed receipts, specifically the Rs. 33,83,370/- proposed by the AO in the remand report. The revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the protective nature of the addition from family members. Therefore, the revenue's appeal concerning AY 2021-22 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice and the assessment order under Section 147 were not explicitly decided in the provided text, but the appeals were disposed of on merits. Regarding the additions based on seized diaries and ledgers, the Tribunal found that the AO's approach of taxing the entire gross credit of Rs. 196.80 crores in miscellaneous transactions was not justified, as only undisclosed income, not gross receipts, is taxable. The CIT(A) had correctly identified that many miscellaneous entries were already accounted for in specific heads like land trading, share trading, and interest. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the peak credit of Rs. 33,83,370/- in other ledgers, considering it as undisclosed income. However, the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 13,14,035/- received from family members, treated as protective, was also upheld as logical and rational. The Revenue's grounds challenging the deletions made by the CIT(A) were dismissed. The final outcome indicates that the assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approach of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,83,370/- on account of peak credit in other ledgers and deleting the addition of Rs. 13,14,035/- in respect of receipts from family members (found to be protective) was logical and rational. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the undisclosed income and not the entire undisclosed receipts, stating that the AO's initial addition of Rs. 196.80 crores on gross credit was not justified. The AO himself, in the remand report, had proposed an addition of only Rs. 33,83,370/- for 'Other ledgers'. The CIT(A) rightly considered the peak credit for miscellaneous transactions, excluding those already accounted for in identified heads, and confirmed the addition to that extent. The Revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the protective nature of the family member receipts. Therefore, the Revenue's ground of appeal concerning these deletions was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.