ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the necessary taxes on the income disclosed under IDS 2016 and that Form 4 is proof of this. However, since Form 4 was not available before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to verify it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's reply before passing the order. The impugned order was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. In that order, the Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is claimed.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income was in the nature of business income due to low GP rates and not unexplained money. Therefore, the AO correctly taxed it under normal provisions, and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the long-term capital loss. The assessee failed to provide any evidence regarding the sale of unquoted shares, their acquisition cost, or the nature of the transactions, even after being directed to do so.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the long-term capital loss. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the sale of unquoted shares, their acquisition cost, or the nature of the transactions, even after multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that filing a belated return, while it may lead to disallowance of a deduction, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Supreme Court's decisions in Reliance Petroproducts and Price Water House Coppers were relied upon.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the long-term capital loss. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the sale of unquoted shares, their acquisition cost, or the nature of the transactions, even after multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, being out of business receipts and realization from debtors, was reasonable and supported by documentation. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the nature and source of the bank deposits were duly explained by the assessee as proceeds from sales recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax. Since these sales were accepted by the Revenue in the hands of the buyer and the assessee's books were not rejected, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the nature and source of the bank deposits were duly explained by the assessee as proceeds from sales recorded in the books of accounts and offered to tax. Since these sales were accepted by the Revenue in the hands of the buyer and the assessee's books were not rejected, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were similar to those in previous cases where vocational training and skill development were considered charitable. Therefore, the CIT's order rejecting registration was reversed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did provide accommodation entries, the 2% commission rate was not adequately substantiated. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a commission rate of 0.15%.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the subsequent events and the assessee's prayer.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had filed a fresh application for registration. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the appeal before the ITAT, citing sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case and that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention the service of notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under section 147/148 on the same issue already considered in proceedings under section 143(3)/263 is not permissible, especially without new material. Therefore, the notice under section 148 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of export commission paid to NRIs without TDS deduction, as the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India. For advances, the Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of export commission paid to NRIs without TDS deduction, as the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India. For advances, the Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of export commission paid to NRIs without TDS deduction, as the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India. For advances, the Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits and without proof of service of notice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of export commission paid to NRIs without TDS deduction, as the income was deemed to accrue or arise in India. For advances, the Tribunal directed the AO to ascertain the availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that Form 67 was filed within the extended due date for filing the return of income. Therefore, the denial of FTC was incorrect as the documentary evidence of filing Form 67 was not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that notices issued only through the ITBA portal do not constitute valid service. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed.

The Tribunal found that there was no proof of service of notices on the assessee and that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the decisions of coordinate benches for earlier years, which had allowed the deduction under Section 80IA. The pendency of appeals before the High Court did not warrant deviating from these established precedents.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied an opportunity for hearing via video conferencing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The dismissal was not on merits, and the legal issues were left open.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to plead their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to non-service of notice and the bonafide cause shown by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not mention the service of notices on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order invoking revisionary powers under Section 263, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted a clear lack of material on record and non-application of mind by the AO regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) to the consideration received for the issuance of Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS). Regarding the set-aside proceedings where Rs. 2,59,25,331/- was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(viib) from Kaizen Domestic Scheme-1, the Tribunal did not agree that the assessee took a fresh ground before the Tribunal. The assessee's consistent stand was that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable when investments are received from Venture Capitalists. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant documentation to qualify as a Venture Capital Undertaking and for the investor company to qualify as a Venture Capital Fund was submitted for the first time before the CIT(A), not the AO. Since there were no findings from either the AO or the CIT(A) on this specific point, and the AO sought time for verification, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim under the proviso to Section 56(2)(viib), allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The appeal in ITA No. 171/Chd/2021 was dismissed, and the appeal in ITA No. 212/Chd/2023 was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order invoking revisionary powers under Section 263, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted a clear lack of material on record and non-application of mind by the AO regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) to the consideration received for the issuance of Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS). Regarding the set-aside proceedings where Rs. 2,59,25,331/- was brought to tax under Section 56(2)(viib) from Kaizen Domestic Scheme-1, the Tribunal did not agree that the assessee took a fresh ground before the Tribunal. The assessee's consistent stand was that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable when investments are received from Venture Capitalists. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant documentation to qualify as a Venture Capital Undertaking and for the investor company to qualify as a Venture Capital Fund was submitted for the first time before the CIT(A), not the AO. Since there were no findings from either the AO or the CIT(A) on this specific point, and the AO sought time for verification, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim under the proviso to Section 56(2)(viib), allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The appeal in ITA No. 171/Chd/2021 was dismissed, and the appeal in ITA No. 212/Chd/2023 was allowed for statistical purposes.