ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which did not fall under any exceptions provided in the CBDT circular. The delay in filing the appeals was also not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits and not falling under any exceptions, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which did not fall under any exceptions provided in the CBDT circular. The delay in filing the appeals was also not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits and not falling under any exceptions, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits and not falling under any exceptions, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which did not fall under any exceptions provided in the CBDT circular. The delay in filing the appeals was also not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the letter dated 07.02.2020 was merely an intimation and not an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed before the CIT(A) against this letter was infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the husband owned up to the land transactions and the deposits, and the wife was an illiterate housewife with no other source of income, the addition should have been made only in the husband's hands. The addition in the wife's hands was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the husband owned up to the land transactions and the deposits, and the wife was an illiterate housewife with no other source of income, the addition should have been made only in the husband's hands. The addition in the wife's hands was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the husband owned up to the land transactions and the deposits, and the wife was an illiterate housewife with no other source of income, the addition should have been made only in the husband's hands. The addition in the wife's hands was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was valid even if based on audit objections, provided the PCIT applied their own mind. However, specific issues regarding the verification of partner's capital and unsecured loans were found to be adequately addressed by the AO, leading to relief for the assessee on those points.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Rs. 50,00,000 credited to the capital account needs to be remanded to the AO for fresh examination of an impounded slip pad. The addition for excess cash was upheld, and the addition for unrecorded sales was restricted to the estimated gross profit.

The Tribunal held that the matter was decided ex-parte without going into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. This was due to the assessee's explanation that their counsel's non-appearance was beyond their control and that the transaction was tax neutral.

The ITAT held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 based on an audit objection is valid, provided the PCIT applies his own mind. The issue of unsecured loans was set aside for verification, while the issue of cash deposits was allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's extraordinary health condition that prevented him from presenting his case. Both parties agreed that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted a potential genuine misunderstanding by the assessee regarding adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted a potential genuine misunderstanding by the assessee regarding adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that there might have been a genuine misunderstanding regarding adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial and that corpus donations should not be included in surplus calculation. It also allowed the accumulation of funds under Section 11(2) as the assessee utilized the accumulated amount for the stated charitable purposes in subsequent years.

The Tribunal noted that there might have been a genuine misunderstanding regarding adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The Tribunal reasoned that the provision of Section 80G(5)(iii) requires filing the application within six months of the provisional approval or commencement of activities, whichever is earlier. In this case, the assessee obtained provisional approval on April 5, 2023, and filed the application for final approval on September 23, 2023, which was well within the six-month period from the provisional approval date (due by October 5, 2023). The Tribunal found the date of commencement of activities (April 18, 2006) to be insignificant and not applicable in the peculiar facts, as the society acquired a new legal status on September 6, 2022, and obtained provisional approval thereafter. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(E) should have decided the matter on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, rather than rejecting it on a technicality of maintainability. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order on merits, considering the observations made and the relevant CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principle of natural justice by disposing of the assessee's objections through an annexure to a notice, rather than a separate speaking order. The Tribunal also noted a similar penalty for another assessment year was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial and that corpus donations should not be included in surplus calculation. It also allowed the accumulation of funds under Section 11(2) as the assessee utilized the accumulated amount for the stated charitable purposes in subsequent years.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that there might have been a genuine misunderstanding regarding adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex-parte without considering the merits. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the acceptance of additional evidence, noting that while the assessee should have filed them earlier, it was in the interest of justice. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.