Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 2 of 4
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 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 held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The assessee's explanation of severe illness preventing timely filing, which was accepted by the AO for penalty under Section 271F, constituted a reasonable cause. Rejecting the same explanation for Section 271(1)(c) would be contrary to natural justice.
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 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 observed that the CIT(A) incorrectly stated the AO failed to submit a remand report, as an interim report was filed. Citing Section 250(4) and the Jan Sampark judgment, the tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed in its statutory duty to conduct further inquiries and properly consider all information, including the remand report. The tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for fresh examination and meaningful inquiries in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunities for hearing and did not decide the case on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had subsequently obtained the required recognition certificates from both regulatory authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, taking into account these newly received approvals. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) could have decided the matters in light of the ITAT's findings for AY 2010-11 (ITA Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016, order dated 18.7.2022) and AY 2012-13 (ITA No.625/Bang/2017, order dated 14.02.2022). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not take cognizance of these ITAT orders. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and revised its Return of Income. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh, after taking into cognizance the ITAT's orders and all other proceedings that occurred in these years. The general ground of appeal (Ground No.1) was dismissed as not pressed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the ld. DR had no objection to the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, considering that the dispute was settled under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) could have decided the matters in light of the ITAT's findings for AY 2010-11 (ITA Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016, order dated 18.7.2022) and AY 2012-13 (ITA No.625/Bang/2017, order dated 14.02.2022). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not take cognizance of these ITAT orders. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and revised its Return of Income. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh, after taking into cognizance the ITAT's orders and all other proceedings that occurred in these years. The general ground of appeal (Ground No.1) was dismissed as not pressed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal rejected the inclusion of 'Infomile Technology P. Ltd.' as a comparable due to dissimilar functions. It directed the TPO to exclude comparables with turnover above Rs. 200 crores. Regarding interest on delayed receivables, it held that no adjustment was required in the impugned year, but directed the TPO to apply the rate in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal did not require adjudication at this stage as the outcome depended on the pending condonation petition filed by the assessee for delayed filing of the return under section 119(2)(b). The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned.
The Tribunal considered the submission of the parties and the fact that Form-4 was issued by the competent authority settling the dispute. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the issue was resolved under the DTVSV, 2024.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to follow the prescribed procedure for levying penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the AO did not clearly establish underreporting or misreporting with specific limbs of the section, and the show cause notice was also vague.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities aligned with charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and were for public utility. It allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that an appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings, thus allowing the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 even if registration was granted during the appeal stage. The assessee's activities were considered charitable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) but remanded the issue to the AO to verify the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses under Section 57. Regarding the demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs could not be treated as worthless immediately after demonetization and remanded the case to the AO for verification of the source of deposits, allowing this ground for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities aligned with charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and were for public welfare. It allowed the benefit of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the AO's estimation was speculative and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the AO's best judgment assessment was based on an arbitrary selection of data.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate or intentional but arose from a bona fide belief that the adjustments could be resolved during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Gujarat Electricity Board.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) but remanded the issue to the AO to verify the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses under Section 57. Regarding the demonetization cash deposits, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs could not be treated as worthless immediately after demonetization and remanded the case to the AO for verification of the source of deposits, allowing this ground for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 273B, which provides for the deletion of penalty if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transaction was accepted by the AO. The assessee had sold two immovable properties and received Rs. 10,32,000/- in cash on the date of registration, which was immediately deposited into the bank account. The assessee's contention that the buyer failed to provide an account payee cheque or demand draft well before the registration date, forcing the assessee to accept cash to complete the sale deed, was considered. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for contravening Section 269SS by accepting cash otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft, and the transaction was bona fide. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271D amounting to Rs. 10,32,000/-. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 58 days was supported by a reasonable cause, as it was due to a genuine belief and not negligence. The CIT-A's approach of dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without examining merits was not in line with principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash available to justify the deposits made in her bank account. The benefit of the doubt goes to the assessee due to lack of evidence from the Revenue suggesting otherwise.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The case was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the assessee's share in the property requires further examination to determine if it was 25% or 50%. Regarding Section 54 exemption, the Tribunal noted that if construction commenced within the prescribed period, the assessee is entitled to deduction even if completion was delayed, and this also requires further verification.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by including issues not part of the original reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment order itself was based on an invalid notice under Section 143(2) in certain circumstances.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's contentions regarding payments made on bank holidays, through an agent, and business exigencies. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for justice and proper opportunities for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 334-day delay, noting the Ld. DR's failure to refute the assessee's contentions and the submitted medical certificate. Emphasizing the Ld. CIT(A)'s duty to decide on merits, and considering the assessee's circumstances, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the AO for fresh examination, with a condition that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee fails to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination. The assessee is directed to produce documents to establish the cost of funds related to interest income earned from bank deposits, and the AO is to allow appropriate opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This restoration is conditional on the assessee depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the income tax department under the head 'Others' and providing the challan to the CIT(A) office. The ITAT also clarified that the CIT(A) should grant proper opportunities, but the assessee would not be entitled to any leniency for further unnecessary adjournments or defaults.
The Tribunal found that the issue was primarily about the restriction of TDS credit. To ensure justice and proper consideration, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to allow TDS credit as per law and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that for calculating average aggregate advances of rural branches under Section 36(1)(viia), both outstanding and fresh advances should be considered. The issue regarding the population of branches for rural status was remitted to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the shares were held as a strategic investment under the 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) category, not as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the gains arising from their sale were correctly treated as Long Term Capital Gain, as per CBDT guidelines and the assessee's consistent accounting.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to pass a speaking order considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given a specific finding on the issue and had merely remanded the matter. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue directly and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions of both parties and relevant judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee bank's contention that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Regarding the classification of profit from the sale of CanFin Homes Ltd. shares (Issue 2), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that the shares were a capital asset and a strategic investment. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not appreciated this fact and had not followed the circulars. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider this ground afresh. Regarding the applicability of Section 115JB (Issue 3), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that Section 115JB was not applicable. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given a specific finding and had remanded the matter. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh. Regarding additions to book profits under Section 115JB (Issue 4), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had remanded the matter to the AO without giving specific findings. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh. Regarding the deletion of additions under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) (Issue 5), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions. The revenue argued that Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(viia) was relevant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts and the relevant provisions. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh. Regarding the applicability of Companies Act, 2013, and Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) (Issue 6), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions. The revenue argued that CSR expenditure is not deductible. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated the facts and the relevant provisions. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh. Regarding the allowability of penalties under Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act (Issue 7), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions. The revenue argued that these penalties are not allowable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue afresh. In essence, for all the issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the matters properly and had either remanded them without specific findings or upheld the AO's decision without proper appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded all the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided the following: Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to pass a speaking order. The assessee argued that no disallowance is permissible for a bank and that shares in CanFin Homes Ltd. were a capital asset. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal with a direction to the AO. The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on the merits of the disallowance but acknowledged the direction for a speaking order. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that shares held were capital assets, not stock-in-trade. On the classification of income from CanFin Homes Ltd. shares (Issue 2), the assessee argued they were capital assets and strategic investments, while the revenue contended they were business income. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it appears to be a point of contention regarding whether the shares were held as stock-in-trade or as a capital asset. Concerning Section 115JB (Issue 3), the assessee argued its non-applicability. The CIT(A) had remanded the matter for a speaking order. The Tribunal noted the assessee's grievance that the remand was done without specific findings on each item. Regarding the deletion of addition/deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) (Issue 4), the revenue argued that Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(vii) limits provision accounts. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO. The specific finding of the Tribunal on this issue is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but it pertains to the allowability of bad debts. On the applicability of Companies Act, 2013, and Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) (Issue 5), the revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in holding the Companies Act inapplicable and thus Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) not applicable. The Tribunal's decision on this point is not explicitly stated in the excerpt. Regarding Trust Expenses and CSR (Issue 6), the revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting these expenses, citing Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) regarding CSR. The Tribunal's specific finding on the allowability of these expenses is not fully detailed in the provided text. On penalties under Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act (Issue 7), the revenue questioned the CIT(A)'s holding that these were allowable. The Tribunal's decision on this issue is not explicitly stated. Regarding deduction under Section 36(1)(vii)(a) (Issue 8), the revenue raised a question about its applicability on total outstanding advances. The Tribunal's decision on this specific point is not detailed in the provided text. Overall, the Tribunal clubbed the appeals, heard them together, and disposed of them by a common order. The judgment indicates that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeals and remanded certain issues for fresh consideration by the AO. The Tribunal's final decision on most of these issues is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it appears to involve remanding matters back to the AO for further adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D requires further examination. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. and other pronouncements. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a specific finding on each item, necessitating a remand. Regarding the classification of income from the sale of CanFin Homes Ltd. shares, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO, implying a favorable view towards the assessee's claim of capital gains, but the specific reasoning for this deletion is not fully elaborated in the provided text. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal concerning Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) were related to the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), indicating the CIT(A) had ruled in favor of the assessee on this point, but the detailed reasoning is absent. The issue of Section 115JB applicability was also raised by the assessee, but the outcome is not detailed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were agricultural income. Since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to consider the documents and decide the case afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment petition. The matter was set aside and remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted the long gap since the notices were issued and the assessee's submission that the notices were not properly attended to. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte penalty order was incorrect. It was deemed appropriate for the CIT(A) to decide both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal simultaneously.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for cash deposits out of savings and borrowings from friends/relatives, as well as his wife's earnings from tuition, was plausible, especially since the AO had accepted unsecured loans and the source of the property purchase. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's arguments regarding the wife's contribution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee is a senior citizen not well-versed with online proceedings. The ex-parte order passed by the FAA was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The assessee later decided to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and paid the determined amount. Consequently, the appeal was withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive proper notices from the CIT(A) and that the CA's death also contributed to non-compliance. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to prove that Tavelon LLC's income is business income as per the India-US DTAA, or that the services qualify under the 'make available' test of Article 12(4). The Tribunal noted that a legible agreement and PE certificate were submitted for the first time.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS is not attracted when deposits are received from members, especially in the context of a cooperative society operating on the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal found that the deposits were genuine, made by members, and accepted in good faith.