Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 3 of 4
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 assessee's inability to appear before the CIT(A) was due to bona-fide reasons and set aside the order. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from statutory deposits mandated by the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act is operational income derived in the course of the assessee's business and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment orders was mechanical and not granted with due application of mind. The JCIT granted approval on the very next day of receiving the request, without sufficient time to review the draft assessment orders and records, as evidenced by directions given to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-check details. This mechanical approval, contrary to the spirit and intent of Section 153D and supported by judicial pronouncements, renders the consequential assessment orders void-ab-initio. Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate the other legal and factual grounds raised by the assessee, as the fundamental basis of the assessments was flawed. The appeals were allowed by setting aside the assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 153A.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and commercial banks is not eligible for Section 80P deduction, but should be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', with corresponding expenses deductible under Section 57. The findings for AY 2018-19 were applied to AY 2020-21.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was not a speaking order and did not adjudicate on the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) does not mandate disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67, and that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. It also noted that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Income Tax Act and Rules.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not adjudicated on the grounds raised and that the assessee was not granted an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred by considering the provisions related to donors claiming deductions under Section 80G, instead of focusing on the conditions for institutions seeking approval under Section 80G(5). The Tribunal noted that the trust already had 12A registration and provisional 80G approval, implying its activities were considered genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of reclassifying agricultural income as income from other sources and the CIT(A)'s partial allowance are not correct. Similarly, the issue of unexplained cash deposits needs verification. Both issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the section 148 notice. It held that the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity under section 148A(b) is a substantive defect that cannot be cured by sections 292B/292BB, rendering the entire proceedings null and void.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment orders was mechanical and not granted with due application of mind. The JCIT granted approval on the very next day of receiving the request, without sufficient time to review the draft assessment orders and records, as evidenced by directions given to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-check details. This mechanical approval, contrary to the spirit and intent of Section 153D and supported by judicial pronouncements, renders the consequential assessment orders void-ab-initio. Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate the other legal and factual grounds raised by the assessee, as the fundamental basis of the assessments was flawed. The appeals were allowed by setting aside the assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 153A.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment orders was mechanical and not granted with due application of mind. The JCIT granted approval on the very next day of receiving the request, without sufficient time to review the draft assessment orders and records, as evidenced by directions given to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-check details. This mechanical approval, contrary to the spirit and intent of Section 153D and supported by judicial pronouncements, renders the consequential assessment orders void-ab-initio. Consequently, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate the other legal and factual grounds raised by the assessee, as the fundamental basis of the assessments was flawed. The appeals were allowed by setting aside the assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 153A.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals pertained to AYs 2017-18 to 2020-21, with the primary dispute concerning additions made pursuant to a search action on February 26, 2020. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was under Section 143(3) with a Section 14A addition. For AY 2018-19, proceedings were under Section 153A, involving additions based on a Section 132(4) statement and a Section 14A disallowance. For AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, Section 153A assessments included additions for tendu leaves purchases, stock undervaluation under Section 145A, labelling expenses, Section 40A(3) contravention, director's declaration, cash seizure, and Section 14A disallowances. The AO's basis for Section 14A disallowances was that the assessee had invested surplus funds in securities earning exempt income while having borrowed funds, thus not utilizing surplus for business. The CIT(A) granted partial relief on Section 14A disallowances, directing deduction of voluntary disallowances, and deleted the cash seizure addition for AY 2020-21. The CIT(A) confirmed other additions based on the assessee honouring voluntary admissions. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's challenge to the validity of assessment orders and notices, and the grounds related to Section 14A disallowances. The judgment indicates that the Tribunal was to adjudicate these grounds. The specific findings on each issue and the final operative directions are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Tribunal was seized with the appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and the certificate under section 92(1) of the scheme had already been issued. Following the assessee's request and the scheme's provisions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) was without jurisdiction as it was based on an updated return that the CPC itself had previously declared invalid. A valid return is a prerequisite for processing under Section 143(1), and any disallowance in the absence of a valid return must be pursued through regular assessment proceedings under Section 144. Therefore, the intimation and subsequent disallowance were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, citing relevant case law and the provisions of Section 80P(4). However, the assessee is allowed to claim proportionate expenses incurred in earning this income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cash deposit percentage to sales remained consistent before and after demonetisation, indicating stable cash handling practices. The AO's addition under Section 68 was found to be unjustifiable, especially considering the business context and the lack of defects in the maintained cash books.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee, as per settled legal position from various High Courts and the Supreme Court. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest income from deposits with cooperative banks and commercial banks is not eligible for Section 80P deduction, but should be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', with corresponding expenses deductible under Section 57. The findings for AY 2018-19 were applied to AY 2020-21.
The Tribunal held that the demonetized banknotes deposited during the demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained money solely because they were accepted after the announcement. However, the source of the money needs verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was served on the assessee via postal correspondence on 23/10/2019, not 25/09/2019, making the appeal filed on 22/11/2019 well within the 30-day statutory period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)-NFAC's order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, citing Supreme Court precedents. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was completed under section 147/144 without the assessee filing her return of income and that there was a large cash deposit. Despite the lack of response from the assessee to the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) not admitting the appeal, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the AO for denovo consideration. The AO was directed to provide three reasonable opportunities for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the condonation application, which violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation application and then the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary details and opportunities before the CIT(A), the interest of justice demands a fair hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear and submit evidence before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and a Special Bench ruling, held that Section 115JB is not applicable to banking companies. The court noted that banking companies prepare their accounts as per the Banking Regulation Act, not Schedule III of the Companies Act.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural expenses were debited to the partner's capital account as drawings and not as expenses of the partnership firm. Since the agricultural income and land holding were not doubted, and the expenses were genuine drawings, the disallowance made on the ground of double claim was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was served on the assessee via postal correspondence on 23/10/2019, not 25/09/2019, making the appeal filed on 22/11/2019 well within the 30-day statutory period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)-NFAC's order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the AO issuing a notice with less than the mandatory 7 days' time and passing a blank order under Section 148A(d). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not adequately followed as the documents submitted by the assessee were not properly considered by the CIT. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that revenue share from third parties for utilizing airport premises for services like retail and food outlets has a direct nexus with airport operations and is eligible for deduction. However, guarantee commission earned from a subsidiary for a hotel project, classified as non-airport activity, is not eligible.
The Tribunal held that revenue share from third parties for utilizing airport premises for retail outlets and restaurants has a direct nexus with the assessee's business of airport operation. It also found that interest income from security deposits and government grants, which were not claimed by the assessee, were wrongly disallowed by the AO, leading to double taxation.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and a subsequent email from the counsel requesting withdrawal. Permitting the assessee to withdraw both appeals, the Tribunal consequently dismissed them as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by providing the identity, confirmation, bank statements, and income summary of the lender (director). The onus then shifted to the revenue, which failed to provide contrary material.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and a subsequent email from the counsel requesting withdrawal. Permitting the assessee to withdraw both appeals, the Tribunal consequently dismissed them as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting clause (ba) to Section 12A(1) of the Act, which mandates timely filing of returns for exemption under Section 11, was introduced effective from AY 2018-19. Therefore, this condition was not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of developing computer software qualifies as production of an article or thing, and computers used for this purpose are plant and machinery eligible for additional depreciation. The Tribunal also allowed foreign taxes paid as a deduction and remanded the MAT credit issue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted Form 1 and Form 2. The revenue's counsel agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted Form 1 and Form 2. The revenue's counsel agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted Form 1 and Form 2. The revenue's counsel agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the VSVS scheme and submitted Form 1 and Form 2. The revenue's counsel agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, condoning the delay of 217 days. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. Regarding the excess PF contribution, the Tribunal held that the assessee had not contravened Rule 87 of the IT Rules, as the contribution was within the 27% limit of the total salary paid (including capitalized salary), and directed the AO to delete the addition. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15,32,615/- as unexplained cash credit from Smt. Seema Sharma, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its duty by providing necessary documents and the onus shifted to the AO, which was not discharged. Therefore, this addition was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the audit report was prepared on 10/08/2018 and filed on 01/09/2018, making the return filed on 13/09/2018 within the extended due date. The lower authorities erred by not considering these documents which were presented during the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for settlement under the VSV Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory/statutory deposits made by the co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, as it is attributable to the business activities. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory/statutory deposits made by the co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, as it is attributable to the business activities. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory/statutory deposits made by the co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, as it is attributable to the business activities. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.