ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the mandatory filing of Form 10 electronically by the due date is a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2). However, considering the circumstances and the assessee's contention of technical glitches and lapses, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year without obtaining the prior sanction from the competent authority as required by Section 151(1). Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the employee's share of GPF contribution was not to be disallowed, but the employer's and employee's share of CPF/NPS contribution, if not deposited by the due date, would be treated as deemed income and not eligible for deduction. The employer's share could be claimed in subsequent years upon actual payment.

The Tribunal held that the employee's share of GPF contribution was not to be disallowed, but the employer's and employee's share of CPF/NPS contribution, if not deposited by the due date, would be treated as deemed income and not eligible for deduction. The employer's share could be claimed in subsequent years upon actual payment.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue's counsel could not controvert the assessee's computation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were not served on the updated email ID. The procedure under section 250(6) was also not followed.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order were not in accordance with justice. Consequently, both orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were not served on the updated email ID. The procedure under section 250(6) was also not followed.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the opening written down value, agreeing with the Revenue's no objection. For additions made during the year, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were not served on the updated email ID. The procedure under section 250(6) was also not followed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the amount was small and could be considered past family accumulation. Depositing old currency notes after demonetization does not automatically make the amount unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were not served on the updated email ID. The procedure under section 250(6) was also not followed.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte assessment and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order were not in accordance with justice. Consequently, both orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) as notices were not served on the updated email ID. The procedure under section 250(6) was also not followed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. It found that the AO had applied his mind and accepted the surrender as business income after due verification, making the AO's order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the original reasons for reopening the assessment were found to be invalid, the PCIT could not introduce new issues for reassessment that were not the basis for the initial reopening. The assessment order passed under Section 263 was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it did not meet the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the admitted lack of findings on merits by the CIT(A) and considering the assessee's circumstances, granting one more opportunity to represent the case.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be reasonable, noting that a significant portion was deposited before the demonetization period and the source of other deposits was linked to earlier cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the AO's reasons were factually incorrect and lacked the required satisfaction regarding the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received on forced retrenchment under VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also allowed relief under Section 89(1) for the taxable portion of gratuity.

The Tribunal found that the cash withdrawals from the bank accounts were sufficient to explain the cash deposits. The assessee's explanation that cash was maintained for business exigencies and deposited back after meeting requirements was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had recorded findings on the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not based on facts but on hypothetical situations and future verification. It was found that the PCIT failed to establish the twin conditions of the AO's order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue based on existing facts.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, sustaining the CIT(A)'s findings on Section 14A disallowance but modifying the approach for Section 36(1)(va) disallowance. The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. This was because the impugned order was passed ex-parte and lacked findings on the merits.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for a fresh adjudication and the revenue's no objection, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the case afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It found that the Assessing Officer had followed due process and conducted reasonable inquiries, and the Principal CIT had erred in law by expecting further verification in the context of rural agricultural practices.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was part of the assessee's regular business and did not represent an independent undisclosed asset. Therefore, it should be taxed as business income at normal rates, not as deemed income under Section 69B and Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that since the due date fell on a National Holiday, the deposit on the next working day was in compliance with the law. Therefore, the disallowance made by the authorities below was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the merits of the case. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to the change in counsel and the assessee's efforts. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appellant trust as an AOP and denying it the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The tribunal also considered the trust's past history and registration under Section 12A.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. This dismissal was based on the CBDT Circular specifying a monetary limit for appeals.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that administrative expenses incurred by a corporate entity, even if its core business is discontinued, are necessary for its survival and should be allowed as a deduction. Merely ceasing operational revenue does not mean the business is abandoned.

The Tribunal held that administrative expenses incurred by a corporate entity, even if its core business is discontinued, are necessary for its survival and should be allowed as a deduction. Merely ceasing operational revenue does not mean the business is abandoned.

The Tribunal held that administrative expenses incurred by a corporate entity, even if its core business is discontinued, are necessary for its survival and should be allowed as a deduction. Merely ceasing operational revenue does not mean the business is abandoned.

The Tribunal held that administrative expenses incurred by a corporate entity, even if its core business is discontinued, are necessary for its survival and should be allowed as a deduction. Merely ceasing operational revenue does not mean the business is abandoned.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for cash withdrawals and past savings. However, the explanation for cash deposits from agricultural income was not accepted due to lack of corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C as the seized material did not correlate with the assessment years in question. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C as the seized material did not correlate with the assessment years in question. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.