Loading ITAT cases…
229 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal acknowledged that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. The assessee's counsel explained the absence was due to a communication gap and requested another opportunity. Considering the interest of justice and the paper book filed, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the revised return was processed during assessment despite being belated, and no Section 143(2) notice was issued for it. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly address these admitted facts and therefore remitted the issue back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), opining that there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay and no malafide intention. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's turnover in the software development segment was Rs. 112 crores, while these comparables had turnovers of Rs. 3613 crores and Rs. 996 crores respectively. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that these companies were functionally dissimilar due to owning intangibles, brands, and selling products for which segmental information was unavailable. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches that excluded such comparables based on audit reports, not solely on turnover. Therefore, Revenue's grounds (i) and (v) were dismissed. Regarding grounds (vi) and (vii), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had remanded these comparables (Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Cigniti Technologies Ltd., and Kals Information Systems Ltd.) to the AO for verification against the adopted filters. The TPO was directed to conduct necessary verification. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach and upheld the CIT(A)'s view, thus partly allowing Revenue's grounds (vi) and (vii) for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's cross-objection became academic as the CIT(A)'s order did not materially change the position, and thus dismissed the assessee's cross-objection. The operative direction was that the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, no late fee under Section 234E could be levied as the enabling provision under Section 200A was inserted only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments in co-operative societies/banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the assessee is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank. However, interest earned from fixed deposits in banks is to be considered income from other sources, with relief available under Section 57. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify if the interest income was from investments with co-operative societies and to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on increased profits.
The Tribunal held that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in making additions without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A based on the assessee's suo motu computation, following the Karnataka High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed that notices were not served by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), leading to an ex-parte order. Considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh consideration on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of 10% was without basis. Considering the assessee's declared profit margins in preceding and succeeding years, the Tribunal directed the net profit to be computed at 6.5% of gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12A, the authorities should primarily assess whether the assessee's objectives are for General Public Utility and if its proposed activities are genuine. The DIT(E) incorrectly stepped into the shoes of the Assessing Officer by discussing issues pertaining to assessment of income, which should be examined at the assessment stage (u/s 143(3)).
The Tribunal held that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice in making additions without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A based on the assessee's suo motu computation, following the Karnataka High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal held that since the OD and loan taken by the assessee for investment were disclosed and cross-verified, the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked for addition. Regarding interest expenses, a proportionate disallowance of Rs. 5 Lakhs was upheld as the assessee could not justify the expenditure under Section 28.
The Tribunal considered a CBDT Circular extending the due date for filing renewal applications under sections 12A and 80G. Acknowledging this circular, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The primary issue was whether the interest income earned on investments made from surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents and concluded that interest income not attributable to the main business operations of the assessee is not eligible for deduction. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the cost of funds for earning the interest income.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee, finding them necessary for proper adjudication. These included Seychelles income tax returns, bank confirmations of RTGS transfers from Barclays Bank, Seychelles, and a CA certificate confirming tax residency. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO/TPO for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds (non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b)). The Tribunal found that the issue of cash deposits and disallowance of expenses needed fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the non-receipt of notices and the issue with the original email ID was genuine. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was made ex-parte and the assessee did not have an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal considered a CBDT Circular extending the due date for filing renewal applications under sections 12A and 80G. Acknowledging this circular, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that LTC is meant for travel within India and foreign travel does not qualify for exemption under Section 10(5). Therefore, SBI was liable for short deduction of tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not permissible if paid within the due dates as per the EPF/ESI Act, considering the actual salary disbursement. However, the disallowance should be limited to the amount initially proposed in the notice under section 143(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI results in disallowance as per Section 36(1)(va). The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was followed, confirming that such belated payments are to be treated as income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities and objects were predominantly charitable in nature, not solely religious. The rejection of the 80G application based on the 'religious' classification was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that teaching of Vedas and yoga cannot solely be considered religious activity and that the assessee's activities, including support for underprivileged, education, and heritage, align with charitable purposes. The rejection of 80G was based on an incorrect classification of the trust.
The Tribunal held that the length of the delay is not material, but the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. Considering the ongoing litigation between the present and erstwhile committees and the civil court's order restraining the erstwhile committee members, the non-cooperation could not be considered a made-up situation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. to condone the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the time spent pursuing the alternative remedy with the PCIT should be excluded for limitation purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the delay in filing the audit report is procedural and not fatal to claiming exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the AO's interpretation of Section 44AD(5) was misplaced. Post-amendment by the Finance Act, 2009, maintaining books of accounts and getting an audit is only required if total income exceeds the basic exemption limit, not if income is claimed to be lower than the presumptive rate. The AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing losses and computing income based on the presumptive rate without considering this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of providing credit facilities to its members, including nominal members, should not lead to the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court decisions stating that such denial is not justified, especially if the society is not a bank and does not have a banking license. Any interest or dividend from investments should be considered under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, leading to their non-appearance. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the facts on record. It was of the view that the present appeal should also be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, no adjustment can be made without intimating the assessee in writing or electronically. The assessee did not receive such intimation for the adjustments made. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the adjustments were made contrary to the law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 1,22,78,125 in the bank account. However, it also noted from the statement of facts that only Rs. 58,18,200 was deposited. The assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80JJAA, once fulfilled in the first year for additional employees who meet the 300-day employment criteria, is available for three subsequent assessment years. The proviso to the section and subsequent amendments clarify that continuous hiring or an increase in workforce every year is not a prerequisite for claiming the deduction in subsequent years.
The Tribunal condoned the 16-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding 'sufficient cause' and the importance of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was unintentional and not attributable to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies for the purpose of Section 80P, as per the Karnataka High Court ruling. The issue of denial of deduction for extending credit facilities to nominal/associate members was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the length of the delay is not material, but the reasons adduced must be properly pleaded, convincing, and acceptable. Considering the ongoing litigation between the present and erstwhile committees and the civil court's order restraining the erstwhile committee members, the non-cooperation could not be considered a made-up situation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI must be deposited within the due dates prescribed by the respective Acts. A delay in deposit, even if before the return filing due date, leads to disallowance as per Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that expenses attributable to income taxable under the head 'income from other sources' are allowable. It further held that depreciation is a statutory allowance and cannot be disallowed by invoking Section 14A. The case was restored to the AO for quantification.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided for the substantial delay was bald and general, lacking specific details like the employee's name or departure date. Therefore, it did not constitute a "sufficient cause" for condonation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a co-owner of other residential properties, not an exclusive owner. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 54F as they did not own any other residential house exclusively as on the date of investment.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies for the purpose of Section 80P, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The issue of deduction for credit facilities extended to nominal/associate members was remanded to the AO.
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 32,00,500/- under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition without verification. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct necessary verification for the cash deposits, despite documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal and the rectification order were interlinked. It was deemed necessary for the CIT(A) to consider the appeal against the rectification order along with the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a consolidated consideration of both orders.
The Tribunal found that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural aspect and not mandatory. Given that the delay might be only 64 days after excluding the COVID period and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal agreed with the Ld.DR that the appeal should have been filed against the original assessment order u/s 143(3) and not the rectification order u/s 154. However, considering the delay and the assessee's desire to argue on merits, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not conducted necessary verification regarding the demonetized cash deposits as per CBDT instructions. The assessee was directed to furnish documents to establish agricultural income and the source of cash deposits. The AO was directed to verify these details in light of CBDT circulars and provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, including a physical hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. While the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 68, the CIT(A) invoked Section 69. The Tribunal held that the AO quoting a wrong section is not fatal and the issue is regarding payment of cash outside books. The addition of Rs. 8,58,515/- was considered as unexplained investment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also the delay before the ITAT, citing reasonable cause and lack of malafide intention. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), the income must be attributable to the main business of providing credit facilities. Investments in banks, even if compulsory, do not fall under this category. Regarding Section 80P(2)(d), the eligibility for deduction on interest from cooperative banks is dependent on whether the payer bank is governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and holds an RBI license; this aspect was remitted to the AO. The issue of computing the cost of funds for investment income was also remitted to the AO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value was within the 10% tolerance limit prescribed by the third proviso to Section 50C(1). Therefore, the actual consideration received should be considered for computing capital gains, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order cannot be passed against an erstwhile HUF that had ceased to exist, as there is no machinery provided in the Act to assess such an entity. The assessment order was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction.