ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows co-operative banks to tax interest on NPAs on a receipt basis, is retrospective. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, held that service of notice solely on the e-portal might not constitute proper service. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a full and complete opportunity to present their case, including an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that he was not obligated to file a return as his income, considering the sale of agricultural land, was below the taxable limit. The penalty under Section 271F was deleted as there was a reasonable cause for the failure to file the return.

The Tribunal held that a clear nexus was established between the cash deposit and the sale transaction of agricultural land. In the absence of contrary evidence, the assessee's explanation was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was not a capital asset as it was situated outside the municipality and the village population was less than 10,000. Therefore, the long-term capital gains on its sale could not be taxed.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to a subsequent assessment order accepting the originally assessed income. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the FTC claim solely based on the late filing of Form 67, as the condition is directory and not mandatory, especially considering the amended rules and established judicial precedents. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly referred to Rule 129(8) instead of Rule 128(9).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous. This was because the Delhi Benches were already seized of the matter, and the assessee's appeal was registered there.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee being granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b) after the appeal was filed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's request for the material collected during the search at the builder's premises and for cross-examination of the builder was valid. The Revenue must provide this material and allow the assessee an opportunity to defend herself.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in breach of natural justice principles and was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available if the income is by way of interest from investments with any other cooperative society. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court rulings, stating that Section 80P(4) is only relevant when the assessee itself is a cooperative bank.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,95,000 was illegal and invalid. The cash deposits were supported by the assessee's books of account, sales, and prior cash deposit trends, and were not abnormal.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income and directed the AO to restrict it accordingly. For Section 36(1)(iii), it was held that advances made from interest-free funds do not warrant disallowance. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The tribunal held that while the bank was technically an 'assessee in default' due to the delay, there was no loss to the revenue as the TDS and interest were eventually paid. Given it was the first year of the amendment and no mala fide intention was proven, the assessee should not be treated as an 'assessee in default'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had not doubted the assessee's books of account or the genuineness of its business. The Tribunal noted that the total cash in hand, cash sales, and cash withdrawals exceeded the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income and directed the AO to restrict it accordingly. For Section 36(1)(iii), it was held that advances made from interest-free funds do not warrant disallowance. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable in law as it was passed ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision regarding proper service of notices.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A(2)(a) cannot be sustained if the accounts are correct and complete, and the addition is based on an estimate due to the method of computation. The AO had not recorded any adverse finding regarding the correctness or completeness of the accounts.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeal infructuous. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts from the mother, but allowed the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts against the seized cash. Several grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general in nature.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 143(3) and should have invoked Section 153C. The assessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the claim of agricultural income was not substantiated with adequate evidence. However, the matter regarding the explanation for a Rs. 3 lacs cash withdrawal and subsequent deposit was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions on account of unexplained cash and gifts but allowing the benefit of telescoping for cash gifts. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or general.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross-objections. It held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was wrongly made as the recipients had offered the interest income to tax. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal noted that several legal grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings were raised for the first time before it. Since the CIT(A) had not provided findings on these grounds, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds (share capital and reserves) which were more than the advances given. Therefore, it is presumed that the advances were made from interest-free funds, and no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted.

The Tribunal found that the matter was decided ex-parte and the assessee was not given an opportunity to present submissions regarding the delay in filing Form 10B. The Tribunal noted conflicting CBDT circulars regarding due dates and the authority for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not attracted when the credits in the bank account are duly explained and accepted. The source of cash withdrawals from such explained credits is also considered explained. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing adequate opportunity through both physical and electronic modes of communication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the order was passed ex-parte, violating natural justice. The CIT(E) also failed to consider the assessee's valid registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service. The matter was set aside to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the population of Zirakpur Municipal Council, based on the 2011 Census, was 95,553, which is less than the threshold for land to be considered a capital asset. Therefore, the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not attracted as the assessee did not make any investment capable of earning tax-exempt income, nor did they earn any such income. Consequently, the additions made by the lower authorities were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and no additions were made, the assessee had no further grievance against the revision order. Consequently, the appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading notices on the e-portal does not constitute effective service under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The principles of natural justice require proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading notices on the e-portal does not constitute effective service under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The principles of natural justice require proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(E) was ex-parte and the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and merits, and had not adjudicated the issue of non-service of notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.