Loading ITAT cases…
243 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for Section 12AB registration, finding sufficient cause. It directed the CIT(Exemptions) to grant registration as the assessee had commenced its activities. For Section 80G approval, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act do not have evidentiary value on their own and cannot be the sole basis for additions. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessment had abated, additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. A statement admitting personal use without corroborating incriminating material found during search is insufficient to disturb a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for Section 12AB registration, finding sufficient cause. It directed the CIT(Exemptions) to grant registration as the assessee had commenced its activities. For Section 80G approval, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was Rs. 4,42,543/-, significantly below the Rs. 60 Lakhs limit, and the circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act do not have evidentiary value on their own and cannot be the sole basis for additions. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal observed that the L/R, from a rural background, was unfamiliar with e-proceedings and lacked knowledge of the deceased's transactions. Considering that the AO admitted it was a joint account, and a specific request was made not to send notices to the provided email, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and remitted the case to the AO for fresh assessment, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the L/R, from a rural background, was unfamiliar with e-proceedings and lacked knowledge of the deceased's transactions. Considering that the AO admitted it was a joint account, and a specific request was made not to send notices to the provided email, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and remitted the case to the AO for fresh assessment, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessment had abated, additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. A statement admitting personal use without corroborating incriminating material found during search is insufficient to disturb a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessment had abated, additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. A statement admitting personal use without corroborating incriminating material found during search is insufficient to disturb a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to represent her case before the lower authorities and did not comply with notices. However, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities, the grounds and merits could not be considered. However, considering the circumstances including the assessee's health issues, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal, at the request of the assessee's Ld.AR, dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal was with liberty to reinstate the appeals if the assessee's applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for Section 12AB registration, finding sufficient cause. It directed the CIT(Exemptions) to grant registration as the assessee had commenced its activities. For Section 80G approval, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasoning for rejecting the registration was flawed as the trust deed clearly stated that the benefits were open to all irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. The Tribunal found that the hostel facilities were for all deserving girl students, not just a particular community.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(E)'s rejection of 80G(5) approval based on meagre expenditure was incorrect, especially given that the Tribunal had already set aside a similar denial for Section 12AB registration in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that 80G(5) approval is consequential to 12AB registration and directed the CIT(E) to grant the approval.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act, following a Karnataka High Court judgment. The addition under section 40(a)(ia) was also allowed for deduction under 80P. The addition under section 68 was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 were general and not pressed, hence dismissed. The solitary surviving issue pertained to the addition of Rs. 50,03,600/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a member of the HUF, which sold a property for Rs. 3,15,00,000/-. A part of the sale consideration, Rs. 51,85,000/-, was paid in cash on 25.01.2015. The assessee's father, as the GPA holder, received this cash and deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- into the assessee's bank account on 27.01.2015. The HUF, with PAN AAPHA4505F, had offered the capital gains from this sale in its return of income for AY 2016-17, disclosing the full value of consideration as Rs. 3,15,00,000/-. The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration belonged to the HUF and the addition made in the hands of the assessee was unwarranted. The Tribunal also noted that the father, as GPA holder, had categorically stated the facts of receiving cash and depositing it. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 50,03,600/- under section 69A was directed to be deleted. The addition of bank interest of Rs. 1,45,836/- was also correctly made. Grounds 6 & 7 of the appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was technical and the trust's genuineness was not in doubt. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, directing them to consider the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found for the depreciation claim, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's detailed written submissions regarding the Section 43B disallowance. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, disallowances must be based on incriminating material found during the search. A statement admitting personal use without such material is insufficient to disturb a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(E) failed to independently decide the issue, instead relying on subordinate recommendations without furnishing them to the assessee. The CIT(E) also failed to grant a personal hearing.
The Tribunal held that selecting the wrong section code was an inadvertent error and not fatal to the application, provided no prejudice was caused. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard or to correct the mistake.
The Tribunal held that while Form 67 is procedurally important, the non-filing with the original return was due to the procedure not being notified by the CBDT at that time. The assessee complied with the procedure upon revision and there was no doubt regarding the quantum of the claim. Therefore, the FTC should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(E) failed to independently decide the issue, instead relying on subordinate recommendations without furnishing them to the assessee. The CIT(E) also failed to grant a personal hearing.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessment had abated, additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. A statement admitting personal use without corroborating incriminating material found during search is insufficient to disturb a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the L/R, from a rural background, was unfamiliar with e-proceedings and lacked knowledge of the deceased's transactions. Considering that the AO admitted it was a joint account, and a specific request was made not to send notices to the provided email, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and remitted the case to the AO for fresh assessment, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the disallowance of the indexed cost of improvement. It concluded that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence, such as relevant financial statements from the year of expenditure, despite having ample opportunities before both lower authorities and the Tribunal. Consequently, for want of evidence, the claim for cost of improvement was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not produce sufficient documentary evidence for cash deposits made during demonetization. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine how the cash deposits were utilized and directed the assessee to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after being satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee. Subsequently, upon learning that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that notices were sent via email despite the assessee explicitly opting out of email communication. This lack of proper communication prevented the assessee from presenting their case. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the assessment was unabated at the time of the search. Therefore, any addition must be strictly based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the Supreme Court's decision in *Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.*. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) alone, without corroborating evidence, cannot be considered incriminating material to disturb a concluded assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed depreciation based on the Managing Director's statement and lack of log books. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 50%. The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding the unabated assessment and lack of incriminating material was valid. The judgment also discusses the evidentiary value of loose papers and diaries, citing Supreme Court decisions that such materials, if uncorroborated and not part of regularly maintained books of account, do not constitute material evidence. Consequently, additions based on such materials are unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 4, which relates to the validity of additions based on uncorroborated material. Grounds 5 and 6, concerning interest and general issues, were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to choose the valuation method under Rule 11UA(2) and that the AO cannot question the chosen DCF method if the projections were realistic and achieved. The addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted.
The Tribunal, at the request of the assessee's Ld.AR, dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. This dismissal was with liberty to reinstate the appeals if the assessee's applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were not accepted.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the primary issue. It noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 205/Bang/2023) had already decided that long-distance calling service charges are not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, and the appeal was allowed. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT) on merits, following a previous dismissal of an SLP in a related matter. Therefore, the issue of taxability of these charges in the hands of the assessee no longer survived. The grounds of appeal related to the addition of Rs. 5,80,43,570/- as royalty were allowed. However, grounds related to interest charged under sections 234A and 234B, and initiation of penalty, being consequential and premature respectively, were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the objective of the assessee, promoting yoga, is a charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. Regarding the commencement of activities, the Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(E)'s own order extracted financial statements showing fees received for conducting yoga classes. Although the expenditure towards the Trust's objects might have been minimal, the Tribunal concluded that the Trust had indeed commenced its activities. The receipt of yoga fees was considered testimony to this fact. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(E)'s observation that the assessee had not commenced its activities was deemed incorrect, and the rejection of the application was considered improper. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with directions to the assessee to substantiate its activities and for the Ld.CIT(E) to decide on the merits of the case, specifically whether the Trust's activities are genuine, after granting an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and was passed without proper hearing, also noting the assessee's consistent plea regarding jurisdiction. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to these circumstances.
The Tribunal decided that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions were made based on estimations without rejecting the audited books of accounts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte despite giving opportunities to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty. The penalty notice did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which it was initiated, and the AO's assessment order lacked the required satisfaction for penalty proceedings. Furthermore, even on merits, the disallowance of interest expenditure did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. It then decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's failure to represent properly before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's pursuit of alternate remedies and the fact that the jurisdictional High Court had already ruled in favour of the assessee on the merits of the case. The Tribunal prioritized substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the AO was not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing Board Circular 9/2024. The revenue was granted liberty to file a proper application if errors in tax computation are found.
The Tribunal decided that additions under Section 153A are not sustainable if no incriminating material is found during the search. It also held that additions cannot be made to audited books without rejecting them.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to its short duration and the lack of objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's adjustments regarding the sale of assets appeared prima facie to be as per law, but had not been verified by lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.