Loading ITAT cases…
126 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was staying abroad and was dependent on her father for tax matters, which led to her not receiving or responding to notices. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not responding and remaining unrepresented.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the gains as short-term capital gains and had provided supporting documents. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on a misunderstanding of the transaction, as the assessee did not claim any long-term capital gain exemption. The addition made by the AO was found to be a duplicate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and the reasons for non-appearance. Considering the assessees are old charitable organizations registered since 1985, the Tribunal decided to grant them one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(E) and produce necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had allowed the assessee's petition, condoning a delay in filing the return of income. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA, and thus the addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the General Manager of the assessee was unwell, leading to the non-appearance before the CIT(A). Considering this and similar cases where deductions were allowed, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 29, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was invalid and barred by limitation. The six-year limitation period under the old regime for AY 2015-16 expired on March 31, 2022, and the first proviso to the substituted Section 149(1) acts as a statutory bar.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee not receiving hearing notices, attributing it to staff shortage and communication issues during the COVID-19 period. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have an effective opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was without jurisdiction, as it should have been passed under section 153C, given the circumstances of the search and seized documents pertaining to the assessee. The additional ground raised by the assessee was admitted as it was jurisdictional in nature.
The Tribunal noted that the General Manager of the assessee was unwell, leading to the non-appearance before the CIT(A). Considering this and similar cases where deductions were allowed, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and verified the details submitted by the assessee before accepting the expenses. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 8, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was time-barred as it was issued after the expiry of the limitation period under the old law (March 31, 2022). The first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act acts as a bar to such issuance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the ITAT's order dated 24.04.2020 was received by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 07.10.2020, when a fresh reference was made to the TPO. According to Section 153(6)(i) of the Act, the assessment order should have been passed within twelve months from the date of receipt of the ITAT order, which would be 31.10.2021. Even if the second reference by the AO to the TPO on 07.10.2020 was considered valid, the timeline would extend to 31.10.2022. The impugned assessment order passed on 29.03.2023 (and the subsequent one on 30.06.2024) is therefore beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on the grounds of limitation. Consequently, Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed, and other grounds were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessment order is passed beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance for the Bangkok trip as it was sufficiently substantiated. However, the disallowance for the Italy trip was upheld due to insufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by limitation. The six-year limitation period under the old regime expired on March 31, 2024, and the notice was issued on April 12, 2024.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the interest of justice. The Tribunal also restored the issue of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the husband's bank statements and other evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot pass two separate orders giving effect to an ITAT order for the same assessment year, as it amounts to reviewing the earlier order. The second order passed was deemed to be non-est in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to provide an opportunity to the assessee for re-examination of issues as directed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient explained cash in hand prior to demonetisation to cover the deposit. The authorities below proceeded on doubts without concrete findings. The Revenue failed to establish that the money was unexplained.
The Tribunal held that an AO cannot pass two separate assessment orders (OGE) for the same assessment year and for the same assessee, as this would amount to reviewing its own order, which is not permissible. The second OGE dated 29.12.2018 was deemed non-est in law and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities and referencing Apex Court judgments on the matter. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence presented by the assessee, stating it was essential for proper adjudication. However, instead of deciding the appeal on merits with the new evidence, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot pass two separate orders giving effect to an ITAT order for the same assessment year, as it amounts to reviewing the earlier order. The second order passed was deemed to be non-est in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to provide an opportunity to the assessee for re-examination of issues as directed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered a difference of ₹ 1,946,342 in the stock, which was already part of their return. The addition of the further sum of ₹ 5,469,543 by the AO was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the contravention of Section 269SS, as the transaction was genuine and the assessee acted bona fide. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by multiple factors: oversight by the assessee's accountant, the Assessment Order not being available on the ITBA portal (error on the part of the revenue), and the COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for delay was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was under confusion and had not received the assessment order. Considering the minimal delay and the merits of the case involving cash deposits from members, the Tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering all documents and without providing an opportunity of being heard, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The CIT(E) relied on reports without verifying details and without issuing a show cause notice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the appeal order were ex-parte. Considering the assessee's reasons for non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to present evidence to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee, attributable to its business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. and Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the sales made by the assessee after the demonetization date and before the end of November. The Tribunal noted that all sales, whether in demonetized or valid currency, were recorded in the books of accounts and offered for taxation.
The Tribunal held that the property was acquired in 1994 and sold in 2016, thus qualifying as a long-term capital asset. The lower authorities erred in not granting deduction for the cost of land and construction, indexed to the year of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a dead person without impleading the legal representatives. The assessment made in the name of the deceased assessee was therefore not sustainable in law and was void ab-initio.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now provided additional submissions and documentary evidence. Recognizing that tax matters should be decided on merits, the Tribunal decided to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee and the corresponding fees received cannot be considered as FTS/FIS, but rather as software licensing and help desk support services provided to its customers. The Tribunal respectfully followed the earlier year's order of the Tribunal on similar facts and issues, allowing grounds 2-10 in favor of the assessee. Regarding ground 11, concerning the interest addition, the Tribunal noted the AO's error in the arithmetical addition and acknowledged that the TDS credit exceeded the tax liability. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO to verify records and grant relief as per law, partly allowing the ground. For ground 12, regarding the erroneous refund entry, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify records and issue the refund if not already received, partly allowing the ground. The ratio decidendi is that for income to be classified as FTS/FIS under the India-USA DTAA, the services must involve making technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or process available to the recipient, which was not established for the software licensing and basic support services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the interest and refund issues.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs. Assessing Officer, held that the assessee, being a state rural agricultural and rural development bank providing credit facilities to its members, is a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank. Therefore, Section 80P(4) does not preclude it from claiming deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal decided to restore the issue concerning the computation of margins of comparable companies back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The assessee's primary contention was that the TPO/CIT(A) erred in considering only single-year data for computing the margins of comparable companies, arguing that three years' data should have been taken and averaged out. The CIT(A) had rejected this, citing Rule 10B(4) which allows consideration of data up to two years prior if it influences the determination of transfer prices. The Tribunal noted that it is for the assessee to demonstrate that using data from a period not exceeding two years prior to the financial year is more appropriate. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to give the assessee an opportunity to show that computing the margin using a three-year average would be proper and in accordance with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The chart submitted by the assessee was also to be perused by the CIT(A). Ground No. 2.7 of the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. All other grounds were dismissed as not pressed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that its income was exempt and had not concealed particulars of income. The failure to file a return was due to a misunderstanding of its taxability, and income was declared voluntarily upon receiving notice. The penalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in cases of bonafide belief and voluntary disclosure.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the 1% license fees, holding it as an allowable deduction. Similarly, CAM charges were deleted from the assessee's income from house property, as they were collected and utilized by the mall manager for mall maintenance. However, the disallowance of 1/5th of preconstruction period interest was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Madras High Court's decision in Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. is binding, which affirms that Section 80AC(ii) mandates timely filing for Section 80P deductions. Therefore, the CPC's action of denying the deduction for belated filing was correct.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also deleted additions made by the AO on account of exemptions claimed for gratuity and commuted pension, and unexplained investment in fixed deposits.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee cooperative society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80 P (2) (a) (i) as it is attributable to the business of the society. The Tribunal relied on various decisions of the Karnataka High Court, which were not overruled.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided PAN and Aadhaar cards of the lenders, and the loans were recorded in the books of accounts and audited. The AO had not rejected the books of accounts but added the loans as unexplained cash credit due to lack of creditworthiness proof for some lenders. The Tribunal opined that the AO should have provided an opportunity to cross-examine the lenders or issued notices under section 133(6) to verify their creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee attempted to explain the cash deposit with withdrawal details and customer payments, crucial documents like the cash book were not produced before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the available evidence was insufficient to confirm or delete the addition, especially concerning the period of deposit and the cash book.
The Tribunal held that the assessee need not deduct TDS if not deemed an assessee in default under the first proviso to Section 201(1). Compliance with Section 201(1) and Section 40(a)(ia) provisions, including furnishing Form 26A, absolves the assessee of TDS obligations.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 33,20,000 was not unexplained as the assessee had sufficient cash on hand prior to demonetization, supported by his books of accounts. Regarding the gross profit, the Tribunal found no defect in the assessee's audited books of accounts and no evidence to reject the declared profit margin.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being registered under the Karnataka Souhadra Sahakari Act, 1997, is considered a co-operative society eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The disallowance of deductions for credit facilities to members and interest earned from scheduled banks was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee, being a co-operative society primarily engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, is attributable to its business activities. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in cases like Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. were relied upon.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had verified the assessee's claim of agricultural activity as genuine and had explained the cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal found it inconsistent to not consider the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,500/- as explained, given that the source of income (agriculture) was accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,500/-.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's fund flow statement did not clearly distinguish between cash and bank transactions. The lower authorities also did not fully consider the documents provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 19, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. The six-year limitation period under the old regime expired on March 31, 2022, and the first proviso to the substituted Section 149(1) acts as a statutory bar.
The Tribunal held that since the sale consideration of Rs. 61,00,000 was accepted and the cash received of Rs. 31,00,000 was not disputed, the deposit of Rs. 29,15,000 on the same date could not be disputed as unexplained. However, the Tribunal also noted that the sale consideration mentioned in the notice under section 148 was Rs. 30,45,000, which differed from the assessee's figure. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 29,15,000 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before it was also delayed by 108 days. However, it found that the assessee did not receive the CIT(A)'s order via the provided email, and the revenue could not provide evidence of proper service. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay.