Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessment order for Assessment Year 2011-12 was barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153C(1) of the Act. The satisfaction by the non-searched AO was recorded in March 2018. The Tribunal noted that the period of six years for assessment under section 153C, when applied to a non-searched person, is to be reckoned from the date of receiving the seized material by the AO having jurisdiction over that person. In this case, the receipt of records by the AO was in March 2018, making the preceding six years AY 2017-18 to 2012-13. Therefore, AY 2011-12 fell outside this period. The Tribunal respectfully followed the Apex Court judgment in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh, which held that the proviso to section 153C(1) was intended to address the reckoning of the six-year period from the date of seizure, to avoid prejudice to third parties who might have to preserve records for an inordinate period. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal as the assessment itself was beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) quashing the assessment order was confirmed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal acknowledged the online communication mode, making the accountant's failure explanation less convincing. However, it imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to provide another opportunity for hearing to reconsider the registration applications under Section 12AB and 80G(5).
The tribunal found that the appeals were summarily dismissed by the CIT(A) without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Acceding to the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the tribunal remanded both appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that government grants received for specific purposes, like salary and NCC activities, which were not utilized for those purposes and not refunded, cannot be accumulated. The non-utilization leads to stockpiling rather than using funds for the designated purpose.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The undisclosed income disclosed in other firms by the same partners was honoured, and the facts supported the CIT(A)'s conclusion regarding the partial acceptance of the disclosure.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to present their case on facts and law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to genuine reasons (age, rural background, limited literacy, and procedural unawareness). It accepted the assessee's explanation that cash deposits originated from agricultural income, supported by evidences. Consequently, the addition under Section 69 was deleted, and the related penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed as unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and their undertaking to provide necessary details. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously been granted permanent registration under section 12AB and provisional registration under section 80G(5). However, the CIT(E) had denied the 80G(5) registration due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. Considering the assessee's undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E)'s file. The direction was to consider the available materials and grant registration under section 80G(5) after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the matter for fresh assessment without adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the validity of the Section 148 notice and Section 151 sanction. It held that the AO's order was not ex-parte as compliance was made. The matter is thus remanded back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate all legal and factual grounds on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), confirming that the contingent liabilities were not debited to the Profit & Loss Account but were unrealised interest on NPAs reflected only in the Balance Sheet. Therefore, the CPC's adjustment based on presumption under Section 143(1) was incorrect. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's Cross Objection was also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue's representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT condoned the 109-day delay, acknowledging that the assessee is a Government Organization bound by specific rules and procedures, and that the delay was not intentional. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity for hearing and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 90-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the assessee's bona fide mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause. It held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice, especially as the assessee performs charitable activities and has Section 11 exemption. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to treat the application under the correct clause of Section 80G(5) and adjudicate afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal issues regarding the jurisdiction of the AO, rather than remanding the matter for de novo assessment. The assessment order passed without jurisdiction is invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the addition made by the AO was prima facie incorrect. The matter was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to explain the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately dealt with adverse evidences regarding the genuineness of purchases. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to investigate the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under GST regime concerning these purchases and the genuineness of the suppliers.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not apply his mind to the information received and the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction. The ledger account used for addition was not in the assessee's name, and the director of M/s. Mudra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. had denied the transaction and stated it was a repayment of loans.
The Tribunal found the assessee's non-compliance casual and not justified by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 extension. However, it held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly imposed a single penalty of Rs.20,000/- for multiple failures. The Tribunal clarified that Section 271(1)(ii) stipulates a penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each failure, and separate notices should be initiated for multiple failures. Thus, the penalty was reduced to Rs.10,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as he failed to find a definitive error in the Assessing Officer's (AO) order. The PCIT himself acknowledged that Section 115BAA did not debar the 80G deduction for the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for underreporting of income was not sustainable. The assessee's voluntary surrender of the claim during assessment proceedings, in light of the retrospective amendment and the intent of Section 155(18), entitled them to immunity from penalty.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unsustainable because the AO had properly examined the issue during assessment proceedings and accepted the assessee's plausible view based on evidence. The PCIT failed to address the assessee's submissions and evidence on merits.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of disallowance on account of interest on delayed payment of Service Tax and VAT (Issue 11). The Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 18,29,853/- (Rs. 12,70,342/- on service tax and Rs. 5,59,511/- on VAT) as penal in nature, not allowable under Section 37(1). The assessee contended that these payments were compensatory and allowable, and that the amount of Rs. 5,59,511/- pertained to interest on late payment of TDS, which was already disallowed, thus avoiding double taxation. The CIT(A) held that interest on late payment of Service Tax and VAT is compensatory and allowable under Section 37(1), and directed deletion of Rs. 12,83,844/- relating to Service Tax and VAT interest, and to verify the TDS interest to avoid double addition. The Revenue relied on the assessment order, while the assessee relied on the CIT(A)'s relief and judicial precedents. The Tribunal, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT and co-ordinate bench decisions in Stylam Industries Ltd., held that interest for delayed payment of statutory dues, including VAT and service tax, is compensatory and hence allowable under Section 37(1). The Tribunal found no material to demonstrate that the interest was punitive. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance and dismissed the related Revenue ground. The Tribunal also noted that the combined result of all three appeals was partly allowed for statistical reasons, with specific issues being remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal addressed multiple issues. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance and the Revenue's grounds pertained to this restriction and the disallowance for book profit computation. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on Section 14A for the assessee's appeals or the Revenue's specific grounds regarding book profit. Concerning advances for business purposes (Issue 2), the Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt. Regarding site development expenses and cost of land (Issue 3), the Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 15,16,966/- for cost of land is not fully detailed. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders on the disallowance of Rs. 1,71,000/- under Section 80GGB were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the AO for limited purpose, allowing the related grounds for statistical purposes. For additions on account of cancelled bookings and trade payables (Issue 4), the Tribunal's decision is not provided in the excerpt. On the issue of interest on delayed payment of Service Tax and VAT (Issue 5), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT and co-ordinate bench decisions, holding that such interest is compensatory in nature and allowable under Section 37(1). The Revenue's ground of appeal on this issue was dismissed. In the combined result, all three appeals were partly allowed for statistical reasons.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-calculation of Long Term Capital Gain, directing to allow deduction for cost of acquisition and improvement. It also directed the AO to allow Section 54F deduction for expenses incurred towards construction of the new house until the extended due date for filing return under Section 139(4), even if no deposit was made, subject to verification of the one-house property condition.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was valid. The seized documents, including banakhats and receipts, along with the admission of Rajesh Patel regarding cash received from Anuj Patel, corroborated by the statements of the farmers, provided sufficient evidence of the cash component of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that Rajesh Patel acted as a conduit for both cheque and cash payments. The farmers' statements, when confronted with the banakhats, confirmed the transactions with Rajesh Patel and subsequent sale deeds with Anuj Patel and others at his direction. The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea of denial of cross-examination was an afterthought, as this issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer. The affidavits and cancellation deeds obtained after the search were considered self-serving. The Tribunal also clarified that since the addition was based on accounted cash paid in acquisition of land, the area deducted by the government would not be a parameter for deduction. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that carrying out actual charitable activities is not a prerequisite for granting registration under Section 12A. The genuineness of the trust's objects can be examined even in the absence of current activities. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s reasoning for denial was not in agreement with the established legal position.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's claim of illiteracy and rural background as sufficient cause. It restored the issue of long-term capital gains to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration, directing the AO to determine whether the land sold was indeed rural agricultural land and thus not a capital asset under Section 2(14), and to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was valid. The seized documents, including banakhats and receipts, along with the admission of Rajesh Patel regarding cash received from Anuj Patel, corroborated by the statements of the farmers, provided sufficient evidence of the cash component of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that Rajesh Patel acted as a conduit for both cheque and cash payments. The farmers' statements, when confronted with the banakhats, confirmed the transactions with Rajesh Patel and subsequent sale deeds with Anuj Patel and others at his direction. The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea of denial of cross-examination was an afterthought, as this issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer. The affidavits and cancellation deeds obtained after the search were considered self-serving. The Tribunal also clarified that since the addition was based on accounted cash paid in acquisition of land, the area deducted by the government would not be a parameter for deduction. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was to ensure principles of natural justice were followed, despite the assessee's prior non-compliance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation on motor cars registered in directors' names, finding beneficial ownership and business use established. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of trade payables for further verification.
The Tribunal found no justification in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,07,646/- made by estimating profits after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts due to alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that the uncontroverted fact before them was that the assessee had not booked any purchases from the parties identified in the INSIGHT portal, a fact admitted by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for the Department to conclude that the assessee had booked bogus purchases, reject the books of accounts, and estimate profits. The addition made to the assessee's income was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was valid. The seized documents, including banakhats and receipts, along with the admission of Rajesh Patel regarding cash received from Anuj Patel, corroborated by the statements of the farmers, provided sufficient evidence of the cash component of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that Rajesh Patel acted as a conduit for both cheque and cash payments. The farmers' statements, when confronted with the banakhats, confirmed the transactions with Rajesh Patel and subsequent sale deeds with Anuj Patel and others at his direction. The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea of denial of cross-examination was an afterthought, as this issue was not raised before the Assessing Officer. The affidavits and cancellation deeds obtained after the search were considered self-serving. The Tribunal also clarified that since the addition was based on accounted cash paid in acquisition of land, the area deducted by the government would not be a parameter for deduction. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the mistake of filing the application under the incorrect sub-clause was not fatal and the facts were available to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) ought to have considered the application under the correct sub-clause.
The Tribunal condoned the 54-day delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte appellate order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that income-tax is a levy on 'income' and not on 'gross receipts'. Even if exemption under Section 11 is denied for technical non-compliance, the Assessing Officer must compute taxable income on a net basis after deducting legitimate expenses.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B is a procedural lapse that should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. The substantive conditions for exemption were otherwise satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely based on an ancillary religious object, especially when no expenditure was incurred on it and the trust had already received registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal also emphasized that Section 80G(5B) allows for a small expenditure on religious activities.
The Tribunal held that the addition for suppressed sales should be restricted to the profit element, estimating a 2% profit on the sales value. It also ruled that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified as the advances were made for commercial expediency. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on the rejection of books or the cash credit addition in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 114 days, finding sufficient cause. It held that filing under an incorrect sub-clause was not a material defect that should lead to the rejection of the application, especially when the correct sub-clause was evident from the facts.
The tribunal condoned a 307-day delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) had erroneously dismissed the appeal based on the VSVS scheme, which was applicable to a different assessment. The tribunal set aside the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, directing them to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass orders on merits.
The Tribunal found that the object of constructing community halls for various social/community functions, even with mentions of religious activities, is general and does not propagate any religion. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s finding was incorrect, and the denial of approval was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, with a direction to grant approval if the trust is otherwise eligible.
The Tribunal held that the mistake of filing the application under the incorrect sub-clause was not fatal and the facts were available to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) ought to have considered the application under the correct sub-clause.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee acted promptly upon becoming aware of the rejection order. The explanation for the delay was consistent, supported by evidence, and did not indicate mala fides or deliberate inaction, thus constituting 'sufficient cause' under Section 253(5) of the Act, following the liberal approach laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471 (SC)]. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that both impugned orders of the CIT(E) were passed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee had presented prima facie evidence suggesting defective electronic service. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to issue notices afresh at the correct registered email address and other permissible modes, afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to file documents and explanations, and decide the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by restoring both matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Regarding the section 12AB application, the CIT(E) rejected it for non-furnishing of details. The assessee has now provided audited accounts, ledger extracts, and donation details, which are relevant for examining the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the CIT(E) to examine these evidences and decide the application afresh after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity. Concerning the section 80G application, the CIT(E) rejected it because the assessee lacked valid 12AB registration. Since the 12AB rejection order is being set aside, the fate of the 80G application depends on the outcome of the registration proceedings. Therefore, the 80G application was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision. The Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and directed the assessee to promptly furnish all requisite documents and evidences.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 443/Ahd/2025, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause under Section 253(5) of the Act. The delay was neither deliberate nor lacking in bona fides, and the assessee acted promptly upon becoming aware of the rejection. The Tribunal noted that both impugned orders of the CIT(E) were passed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee presented prima facie evidence suggesting defective electronic service. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside both orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to issue fresh notices at the correct registered email address and by other permissible modes, afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to file documents and explanations, and decide the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) on merits. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 554 days in filing the appeals, applying the principle of substantial justice over technicalities as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, noting the absence of mala fide intention and prompt rectification upon discovery. Regarding the application under Section 12AB, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the registration based on non-furnishing of details. Since the assessee has now provided audited accounts and other relevant documents to examine the genuineness of its activities, the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh examination and adjudication after granting an adequate opportunity. Similarly, for the application under Section 80G, the CIT(E) rejected it solely due to the lack of valid Section 12AB registration. As the Section 12AB order is being set aside, the fate of the 80G application is dependent on the outcome of the registration proceedings. Therefore, the 80G application was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision. Both impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to the assessee to furnish all requisite documents promptly.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, adopting a liberal approach as per the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, considering the bona fide reasons provided by the assessee and the lack of objection from the revenue. Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection of the assessee's application for approval under section 80G(5) as non-maintainable was based on an unduly restrictive interpretation of section 80G(5)(iv)(B). The Tribunal referred to the Finance Act, 2023, CBDT Circular No. 1/2024, and the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2024, which clarified that institutions that have commenced activities and applied for regular approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) should be examined on merits. The fact of having claimed exemption in earlier years cannot be a bar. The Tribunal also cited the decision in West Bengal Welfare Society v. CIT(E), which was affirmed by the Calcutta High Court, stating that rejection on such grounds is misconceived. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.