Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, including technical glitches and the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue of exemption under Section 11 was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to have been withdrawn as per the provisions of Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. This section states that any appeal pending before the ITAT in respect of disputed tax arrears shall be deemed to have been withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate under Section 92(1) of the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted letters dated January 21, 2025, and January 20, 2025, along with attachments, confirming the issuance of Form-2 certificates by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax on January 13, 2025, for both assessment years. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate them if the assessee's applications under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, were not accepted for any reason. No other issue was decided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, and all required forms were processed. In light of the settlement, and as per the provisions of Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, holding that the cash received by the assessee was in violation of Section 269ST. The assessee's subsequent claims of safe custody were not supported by credible evidence, and the initial statement recorded under oath was considered binding.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the issue under the VSV Scheme, 2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the inter-connect service charges paid by Indian telecom operators are not taxable as royalty, following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that receiving fees for educational services does not disqualify a charitable institution from seeking approval under Section 80G, provided its activities are genuine and within the scope of charitable purposes. The CIT(E)'s rejection solely on the ground of fee collection was deemed legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, appeals pending before the ITAT are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate. Since the necessary certificates were issued, the Tribunal considered the appeals as withdrawn.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's bona fide belief in pursuing a rectification remedy. On merits, the ITAT held that since the assessee was subject to mandatory audit under state law, it was entitled to the CBDT's extended due date of 31.10.2019. Thus, the return filed on 25.09.2019 was timely, and the Section 80P deduction was allowable.
The Tribunal ruled that the Section 153A proceedings were invalid as the search warrant was not in the assessee's name and no incriminating material was found for the unabated assessment year. It further held that the income in question constituted professional fees, not salary, making it eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order for AY 2018-19 and applied the same findings to AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s interpretation was flawed. It clarified that receiving fees for educational services by a charitable institution, already registered under Section 12AB, does not disqualify it from Section 80G approval, provided its activities are genuine and fall within charitable purposes. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-examination without being influenced by the receipt of fees.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate substantial income from donations and membership fees, and also overlooked expenses incurred for societal welfare. The appeals were deemed to require fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeal. The DR agreed with the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that after conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade, the fair market value on the date of conversion is considered for capital gains, and this value becomes the cost of stock-in-trade. Profit arising from the sale of stock-in-trade is then treated as business income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS Scheme and had requested withdrawal of the appeals. The D.R. did not object, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition and communication errors. It was held that the property sale was a joint transaction, and the assessee was only entitled to a proportionate share of the sale proceeds, which was correctly declared. The AO's addition was deemed unsustainable and factually and legally untenable.
The Tribunal held that receiving fees for educational services does not disqualify an institution registered under section 12AB from seeking 80G approval, as long as its activities are charitable and genuine. The CIT(E)'s interpretation was found to be flawed.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to her failure to submit any explanations or documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present her case before either the AO or the CIT(A), and thus remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee cooperating and providing all necessary documents without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate substantial income from donations and membership fees, and also overlooked expenses incurred for societal welfare. The appeals were deemed to require fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the VSV Scheme. Considering the submissions and the form issued by the revenue authority, the appeals were dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal ruled that the Section 153A proceedings were invalid as the search warrant was not in the assessee's name and no incriminating material was found for the unabated assessment year. It further held that the income in question constituted professional fees, not salary, making it eligible for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order for AY 2018-19 and applied the same findings to AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that as per the provisions of Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, any appeal pending before the ITAT or CIT(A) in respect of disputed tax arrears shall be deemed to have been withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate under Section 92(1) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal noted that Form No.2, which is the Certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Finance (2) Act, 2024, had already been issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax on December 31, 2024. Consequently, in compliance with the assessee's request letter dated January 10, 2025, and in accordance with the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, the appeal for the Assessment Year 2021-22 was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also granted liberty to reinstate the appeal if the assessee's application under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, was not accepted for any reason. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee is settling the dispute under the DTVSV, 2024. It clarified that if the DTVSV settlement is deemed non-operative or invalid, the assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a MAP resolution agreed upon by the competent authorities for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, in accordance with Rule 44G(6) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee expressed its intention to accept this resolution and consequently requested the withdrawal of its appeals. The learned DR for the Revenue agreed with the assessee's submission. In light of this mutual agreement and the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to the MAP resolution, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original assessment orders or the DRP's directions, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.
The Tribunal held that as per the provisions of Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, any appeal pending before the ITAT or CIT(A) in respect of disputed tax arrears shall be deemed to have been withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate under Section 92(1) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter dated 10.01.2025, enclosing Form No.2, which is the Certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Finance (2) Act, 2024, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.12.2024. In light of this, and the assessee's request for withdrawal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal also granted liberty to reinstate the appeal if the assessee's application under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, were not accepted for any reason.
The assessee informed the Tribunal that it had received and accepted a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw its appeals, which the DR agreed to. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade occurred in AY 2008-09, and the year of taxability for business income arising from the sale of stock-in-trade is not AY 2017-18. It found that the CIT(A) adopted a valuation rate without proper basis and directed that the matter of valuation and the correct year of taxability be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, with a referral to the departmental valuation officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS Scheme and had requested withdrawal of the appeals. The D.R. did not object, and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the VSV Scheme. Considering the submissions and the form issued by the revenue authority, the appeals were dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee is settling the dispute under the DTVSV, 2024. It clarified that if the DTVSV settlement is deemed non-operative or invalid, the assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that receiving fees for educational services by a charitable institution registered under section 12AB does not disqualify it from seeking approval under section 80G, provided its activities are genuine and fall within the definition of charitable purposes. The CIT(E)'s rejection solely on the ground of fee receipts was found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order without considering documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex parte without adequate consideration of submissions and that the CIT(A) enhanced the addition without providing sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that as per the DTVSV Scheme, appeals pending before ITAT are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the certificate. Since Form-2 (Certificate u/s 92(1) of the Finance Act, 2024) was issued, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities but the CIT(E) did not take into consideration the documents filed and rejected the application without concrete findings. Therefore, the Tribunal is remitting the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the source and genuineness of the cash deposits were clearly established, as the mother-in-law's bank withdrawals matched the deposits, and the origin of funds in her account from a land sale agreement was verified. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture, thereby setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding and directing the deletion of the addition on merits. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and that Form-2 had been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the VSV Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the retraction of the Section 132(4) statement by the Secretary was an afterthought and not valid, citing the Hon'ble Madras High Court's observations that retractions must be made within a reasonable time and supported by convincing evidence. The Tribunal found no force in the assessee's argument regarding retraction. Regarding the CIT(Appeals)'s observation about ascertaining total income and accumulation, the Tribunal stated it was irrelevant because the impugned cash was collected as capitation fees. Both the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court have held that benefits of Sections 11 and 12 are not applicable to amounts collected as capitation fees. Affidavits from students were also deemed irrelevant as they would be against their own interest. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were allowed. The assessee's appeal was dismissed on various grounds, including general grounds, issues related to notice under Section 153A, approval under Section 153D, reference to Valuation Cell, time-barring of assessment, and carry forward of expenses, as well as mandatory interest under Sections 234A, B, and C. Grounds 7 & 8 were rendered irrelevant due to the allowance of the departmental appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had violated the principles of natural justice by passing orders without dealing with the facts or considering documentary evidence. Consequently, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-2 under the VSV Scheme and the DR had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that charging capitation fees is not a charitable activity and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The appeals of the revenue were allowed, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 450 days, citing the need for substantial justice and referencing Apex Court judgments on delay condonation. The issue of cash deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had violated the principles of natural justice by passing orders without dealing with the facts or considering documentary evidence. Consequently, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of FTC solely on the technical ground of late filing of Form 67 is not sustainable. Rule 128(9) does not mandate disallowance for delayed filing, and the DTAA provisions prevail over procedural rules. The filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not produce reconciliation documents during earlier proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that if the disallowance is confirmed, it would lead to a double addition since the provision was reversed in the subsequent year. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, honoring the assessee's request. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal if the issue remains unresolved under the VSV Scheme, 2024.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was involved in bogus purchases and claimed bogus ITC, which was accepted. However, the AO added the entire sales/receipts not recorded in the books as income. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing proper opportunity to be given to the assessee.