Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding its activities being for the welfare of the poor and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was not supported by the facts. The assessee had only utilized 2.37% of its gross receipts for charitable purposes, falling significantly short of the mandated 85%. The conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2) were not met, as the specific purpose was vague and the figures did not tally. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim that the 'cess' amount was a corpus contribution, as the assessee itself had treated it as revenue and claimed deductions under Section 11(2). The Tribunal also noted that the statutory time limit for revising returns had lapsed. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's submissions and upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 63/CHD/2021), the Tribunal found that the assessee's expenditure was only 2.37% of gross receipts, and the 'cess' receipts, which formed a major part, were covered under the fourth limb of Section 2(15) and involved activities in the nature of trade, commerce, or business for a cess, making it ineligible for exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E)'s finding that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that the cess received should be treated as a corpus contribution and not revenue receipt is without basis, as the assessee itself claimed it as revenue and sought deductions under Section 11(2). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's submissions, stating that none were relevant to the facts of the case. The Tribunal upheld the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessee incurred only 2.37% of gross receipts as expenditure, far below the mandated 85% under Section 11. The assessee's counsel could not rebut the CIT(E)'s findings. The Tribunal also observed that the major receipts of the assessee were 'cess receipts' which, exceeding 20% of total receipts, rendered it ineligible for tax exemption under Section 2(15) as it involved carrying on an activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business for a cess. The Tribunal found the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal before the CIT(A), the right of appeal is a statutory right and the principle of Audi Alteram Partem should be followed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nature and source of the remaining Rs. 15,00,000/-. The explanation based on an unregistered agreement to sell was contradicted by the timeline of the registered sale deed, rendering the grounds of appeal devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was vitiated in law due to the approval being obtained on wrong facts and the absence of a mandatory allegation of non-disclosure by the assessee. Consequently, the reopening was quashed on legal grounds, rendering the examination of merits academic.
The Tribunal held that interest on compensation falls within the ambit of Section 56(2)(viii) and is taxable in the year of receipt under Section 145B(1), following a precedent set by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) without jurisdiction after the introduction of the faceless assessment regime, making it void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment order was also void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons furnished to be reasonable and bona-fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, as per amendments post-2010, and that the exemption under Section 10(37) is not applicable to such interest income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) to reconsider the withdrawal application, as the demand was deleted and refund issued.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 was condonable and that Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules should be read in conformity with the DTAA, which overrides the Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on an Excel sheet with a figure of Rs. 8,000/-, which the AO arbitrarily multiplied by 100 to arrive at Rs. 8,00,000/-. This was done without any concrete evidence, corroboration, or application of mind, and thus could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the assessee had provided substantial corroborative evidence like audited financials, VAT returns, and bank statements, and the cash book's non-production was due to a technical reason. The lower authorities had not rejected the books of account or found fault with purchases and sales.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities and thus did not get an opportunity to file submissions. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in exercising remand power as the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, and the legal challenge to reopening was not adjudicated. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals concerning penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271A should be adjudicated on merits, as they are directly related to the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A). For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) due to non-compliance with notices, a part was confirmed, and a part was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals concerning penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271A should be adjudicated on merits, as they are directly related to the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A). For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) due to non-compliance with notices, a part was confirmed, and a part was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals concerning penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271A should be adjudicated on merits, as they are directly related to the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A). For the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) due to non-compliance with notices, a part was confirmed, and a part was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee faced medical issues and sought condonation for a delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer, set aside the impugned order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Notification No. 2/2012 and clarification in para 8, the date of dispatch of the verified ITR-V by speed post is considered for determining the 30-day period. Since the dispatch date was within the limit, the return was deemed filed on time.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and records, restricted the impugned addition to a lump sum amount of Rs.1.50 Lacs, applying the normal rate of tax on the sustained addition.
The Tribunal held that the higher rate of tax under Section 115BBE would apply only from 01.04.2017 onwards. For transactions prior to this date, the erstwhile rate of 30% would apply. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to apply the normal rate of tax on the addition of Rs.3.19 Lacs.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard, considering the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal. Furthermore, the cash deposits were proven to be directly linked to the assessee's agricultural income, with no other source of income identified.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of the expenditure was questioned, the source was not doubted and the expenditure was routed through bank accounts. Therefore, it could not be considered unexplained expenditure.