Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the cash found belonged to the assessee and should be treated as advance tax, allowing one appeal. For another appeal concerning PF & ESI contributions, the Tribunal dismissed it on merits, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The third appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in referring to Section 80G(2) instead of Section 80G(5) for considering the grant of registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee fulfilled all conditions prescribed under Section 80G(5) and the activities were genuine and charitable in nature.
The Tribunal held that the cash found belonged to the assessee and should be treated as advance tax, allowing one appeal. For another appeal concerning PF & ESI contributions, the Tribunal dismissed it on merits, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The third appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in allowing the Revenue's rectification application for AY 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel Vs. CIT (which expanded the meaning of 'belong to' to include 'have relation or reference to') supported the assessee's case. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 153C was held to be retrospective in the appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 in favor of the assessee. Since the issues in the present case were similar, the CIT(A) wrongly decided against the assessee by allowing the rectification application in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dated 27.01.2022 was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was allowed.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and the settlement under the VSV Scheme, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to revive it if the issue is not resolved.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 153C, which broadened the scope from 'belongs to' to 'pertains to', apply retrospectively to searches conducted before June 1, 2015, even if the material was received by the Assessing Officer after that date. The court also considered the interplay between Sections 147 and 153C.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in allowing the Revenue's rectification application for AY 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel Vs. CIT (which expanded the meaning of 'belong to' to include 'have relation or reference to') supported the assessee's case. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 153C was held to be retrospective in the appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 in favor of the assessee. Since the issues in the present case were similar, the CIT(A) wrongly decided against the assessee by allowing the rectification application in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dated 27.01.2022 was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of the entire sale consideration as unexplained money under Section 69A was not correct, even though the assessee had not responded to notices. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the AO invoked Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation, violating Section 14A(2). The CIT(A) also failed to address this procedural lapse. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal and observed that the reasons provided by the assessee, related to obtaining approval from higher authorities and routine procedural delays, did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that negligence and lack of due diligence by government officials are not grounds for condoning delay.
The Tribunal held that the issue of capital gains and business income from the JDA had already attained finality in a previous round of litigation. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was not maintainable. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed under the DTVSV scheme and obtained Form-2. Since the matter was being resolved under this scheme, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and accordingly dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in allowing the Revenue's rectification application for AY 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel Vs. CIT (which expanded the meaning of 'belong to' to include 'have relation or reference to') supported the assessee's case. The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 153C was held to be retrospective in the appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 in favor of the assessee. Since the issues in the present case were similar, the CIT(A) wrongly decided against the assessee by allowing the rectification application in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dated 27.01.2022 was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeals for AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the cash found belonged to the assessee and should be treated as advance tax, allowing one appeal. For another appeal concerning PF & ESI contributions, the Tribunal dismissed it on merits, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The third appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for settlement under the VSV Scheme. Considering the request and the quantification of tax, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,29,95,000/- as unexplained investment in jewellery under Section 69A was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that no unexplained jewellery was physically found during the search, and the AO accepted the jewellery found as explained. The addition was made based on the excess jewellery declared in the statement before the Lok Ayukta over what was found in the search. However, the assessee had filed a revised statement before the Lok Ayukta, which was not considered by the AO as an afterthought. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of jewellery not recorded in books and offers no satisfactory explanation for its acquisition. In this case, the Lok Ayukta statements themselves indicated no acquisition of jewellery during the relevant financial year (FY ended 31/03/2016). Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 69A for AY 2016-17. The substantive addition of Rs. 21,54,175/- and the protective addition of Rs. 86,95,409/- (treated as substantive by CIT(A)) were deleted for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also noted that additions for AY 2013-14 were deleted for want of requisite jurisdiction under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessee's appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Other grounds were considered academic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper opportunity for hearing and observed that not all credits could be treated as unexplained without cogent material. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have filed a belated return and that notices were not seen by them. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 153C, substituting 'belongs to' with 'pertains to', is retrospective and applies to searches conducted before June 1, 2015. It also found that the Assessing Officer had the seized material and the assessee's file was centralized, negating the need for separate satisfaction from the searched person's AO.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the search under Section 132 and the consequent assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A are substantial and require detailed examination. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has raised serious allegations regarding the search being initiated on suspicion rather than on prior information, the non-compliance with mandatory provisions for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153A, the lack of proper approval under Section 153D, and violations of natural justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific challenges to the additions made, particularly the unexplained investment in jewellery and the substantial addition based on a disputed diary, which the assessee claims was planted and interpolated. The Tribunal found that these issues necessitate a thorough factual and legal analysis, including the verification of evidence and procedural compliances. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the grounds raised by the assessee, conduct necessary inquiries, and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard. The issue regarding the validity of the search and the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A, along with the specific additions, are to be adjudicated afresh.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,29,95,000/- as unexplained investment in jewellery under Section 69A was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that no unexplained jewellery was physically found during the search, and the AO accepted the jewellery found as explained. The addition was made based on the excess jewellery declared in the statement before the Lok Ayukta over what was found in the search. However, the assessee had filed a revised statement before the Lok Ayukta, which was not considered by the AO as an afterthought. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of jewellery not recorded in books and offers no satisfactory explanation for its acquisition. In this case, the Lok Ayukta statements themselves indicated no acquisition of jewellery during the relevant financial year (FY ended 31/03/2016). Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 69A for AY 2016-17. The substantive addition of Rs. 21,54,175/- and the protective addition of Rs. 86,95,409/- (treated as substantive by CIT(A)) were deleted for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also noted that additions for AY 2013-14 were deleted for want of requisite jurisdiction under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessee's appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Other grounds were considered academic.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained jewellery was not justified as the AO accepted the jewellery found during the search as explained. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that a revised statement to Lokayukta was not considered by the AO and deleted the additions made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the mismatch in turnover, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconciliation. For commission expenses, the matter was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration due to contradictory claims and lack of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue is whether Form 10-IE filed belatedly could be considered during processing. It found that the form was available to the CPC before the intimation was sent, and the dismissal by CIT(A) on limitation grounds prevented the assessee from being heard on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,29,95,000/- as unexplained investment in jewellery under Section 69A was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that no unexplained jewellery was physically found during the search, and the AO accepted the jewellery found as explained. The addition was made based on the excess jewellery declared in the statement before the Lok Ayukta over what was found in the search. However, the assessee had filed a revised statement before the Lok Ayukta, which was not considered by the AO as an afterthought. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of jewellery not recorded in books and offers no satisfactory explanation for its acquisition. In this case, the Lok Ayukta statements themselves indicated no acquisition of jewellery during the relevant financial year (FY ended 31/03/2016). Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 69A for AY 2016-17. The substantive addition of Rs. 21,54,175/- and the protective addition of Rs. 86,95,409/- (treated as substantive by CIT(A)) were deleted for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also noted that additions for AY 2013-14 were deleted for want of requisite jurisdiction under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessee's appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Other grounds were considered academic.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,29,95,000/- as unexplained investment in jewellery under Section 69A was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that no unexplained jewellery was physically found during the search, and the AO accepted the jewellery found as explained. The addition was made based on the excess jewellery declared in the statement before the Lok Ayukta over what was found in the search. However, the assessee had filed a revised statement before the Lok Ayukta, which was not considered by the AO as an afterthought. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 69A applies when an assessee is found to be the owner of jewellery not recorded in books and offers no satisfactory explanation for its acquisition. In this case, the Lok Ayukta statements themselves indicated no acquisition of jewellery during the relevant financial year (FY ended 31/03/2016). Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 69A for AY 2016-17. The substantive addition of Rs. 21,54,175/- and the protective addition of Rs. 86,95,409/- (treated as substantive by CIT(A)) were deleted for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also noted that additions for AY 2013-14 were deleted for want of requisite jurisdiction under Section 153A. Consequently, the assessee's appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Other grounds were considered academic.
The Tribunal found that the AO invoked Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation, violating Section 14A(2). The CIT(A) also failed to address this procedural lapse. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2013-14, which was a completed and unabated assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) could only make additions under Section 153A if there was incriminating material found and seized during the search under Section 132. The Tribunal found that the affidavit dated 01/06/2012, filed with the Returning Officer, declaring jewellery of Nil grams and 350 grams in the hands of the assessee and his wife respectively, was not incriminating in nature by itself. Furthermore, the Lokayuktha return declaring 1500 gms and 4500 gms of jewellery was not found and seized during the search. This Lokayuktha return constituted 'other information' in the possession of the AO. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., which held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The AO could have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act based on the information obtained from the Lokayuktha, but not under Section 153A. Therefore, the additions made for AY 2013-14 under Section 153A were held to be bad in law. The judgment does not explicitly address the other grounds raised by the assessee or the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 in the provided extract.
The Tribunal held that the issue is whether Form 10-IE filed belatedly could be considered during processing. It found that the form was available to the CPC before the intimation was sent, and the dismissal by CIT(A) on limitation grounds prevented the assessee from being heard on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the tax payment had been quantified under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given the liberty to file a fresh appeal if the issue remains unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, stating that the delay was unintentional and bona fide, and that denying condonation would defeat the purpose of the VSV Scheme. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider the judicial precedents cited by the assessee and directed a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not represent the case before the AO due to lack of awareness of online notices and procedures, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to delay without condoning it. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that compensation paid to genuine agreement holders to clear disputes on the property title constitutes cost of improvement. However, since the additional evidence was not produced before the AO, the issue is remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive the notices. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced activities and the documents required verification. For the 80G application, the Tribunal directed a fresh examination of the trust deed. Both matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced activities and the documents required verification. For the 80G application, the Tribunal directed a fresh examination of the trust deed. Both matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that nominal members are considered members under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and that their presence does not disentitle the society from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), provided it functions as a co-operative society and not a commercial bank. The issue of interest income from statutory deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even if associate/nominal members exceeded the limit, as long as the society is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and business is conducted with its members. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition under Section 68, stating that the cash deposits of SBNs were explained as member deposits and properly recorded, not constituting unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the PCIT's rejection of the 12A application lacked sufficient reasoning. For the 80G application, the Tribunal found that CBDT circulars extended the filing deadlines, making the rejection on technical grounds unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A, relying on a Supreme Court judgment that statements recorded under Section 132(4) with corroborating materials can justify such proceedings. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A, relying on a Supreme Court judgment that statements recorded under Section 132(4) with corroborating materials can justify such proceedings. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 201(1) proviso, as well as the Form 26A submitted by the assessee. The disallowance made under Section 154 was deemed inappropriate as it required detailed reasoning and verification of facts. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that a delay in the verification of the return, which is a procedural formality, should not lead to the denial of a legitimate deduction, especially when the return was filed within the prescribed time. The delay was considered a technical default, not a willful non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 71(2) of the Act, the assessee has the option to set off business losses against capital gains. The CPC's adjustment violated principles of natural justice as it was made without affording an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the CPC's adjustment and directed to accept the assessee's original computation.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A, relying on a Supreme Court judgment that statements recorded under Section 132(4) with corroborating materials can justify such proceedings. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the presence of nominal members does not disqualify the assessee from deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), relying on Supreme Court judgments. The issue of interest income from bank deposits was remitted to the AO for determination of its attributability to business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from previous years' agricultural and other income to justify the deposits. The onus was on the Revenue to prove otherwise, which they failed to do.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided were genuine and beyond the assessee's control. It held that the classification of income should be based on the substance of the activity rather than procedural compliance, and the AO was directed to re-examine the nature of the activity and the applicability of Section 44AD.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the PCIT's rejection of the 12A application lacked sufficient reasoning. For the 80G application, the Tribunal found that CBDT circulars extended the filing deadlines, making the rejection on technical grounds unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. The assessee cannot be denied FTC for a procedural lapse, especially when Form 67 was filed before the completion of assessment.