Loading ITAT cases…
327 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the lifting of bank account attachments.
The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the current appeal would not affect the earlier approval granted under Section 80G.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the ex-parte assessment before the AO and the notices issued during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal held that VAT is a tax levied by the State Government under its exclusive domain and is distinct from fees or charges. Therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the revised returns, on which notices under Section 143(2) were issued, were valid. The additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the invalidated revised returns were deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that for gifts of movable property, compulsory registration is not required. The genuineness of the gift deed and the donor's creditworthiness were established, satisfying the conditions of Section 68. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's past profit rates were low and accepted at 1% in a subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal found the 12% GP rate excessive and reduced it to 6%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's circumstances and the need for further evidence, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹10,000.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC order was not decided on merits and the AO's order was a best judgment assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside both orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since no capital gain was declared in the original return of income and there was no tax liability, the CIT(A) was justified in not considering the new plea for deduction under Section 54/54F. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order was ex-parte and lacked merit adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A) and AO's orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234A should be calculated from the expiry of the notice period under section 153A. For section 234B, interest is to be recomputed after giving credit for self-assessment tax paid.
The Tribunal noted that a related application for regular registration under section 12A had been restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to restore the section 80G application as well, directing the CIT(E) to grant proper opportunity to the assessee.
The assessee's grievance was redressed as they were granted the registration. The Department did not raise any objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The tribunal noted that the order was passed ex-parte and that the assessee did not receive the notices. Therefore, the tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the appeal. The assessee has a statutory right to appeal, and the Ld.CIT(A) is bound to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order.
The Tribunal noted that when an assessee has mixed funds (interest-free and interest-bearing), the presumption is that loans given are from interest-free funds, as per judicial precedent. The Tribunal found that the AO had not verified these facts and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 32AC(1A) allows deduction in the year of installation if it differs from the year of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the installation certificate did not provide cost details, hence the matter was remanded to the AO to ascertain the cost of assets acquired in both AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the Investment Promotion Subsidy (IPS) received by the assessee in the form of output VAT is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. This decision followed a previous ruling by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from surplus funds invested in banks cannot be considered within the ambit of the mutuality principle. The CIT(A) rightly exercised its power under Section 154 to rectify its earlier order.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is allowable if the interest is derived from investments with another cooperative society. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if VDDC Bank possesses an RBI license to conduct banking business with the public.
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed authorized the payment of interest on additional funds infused by partners. Since the interest paid was at 12% and authorized by the partnership deed, the deduction claimed was allowable under Section 40(b)(iv) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative and negligent, leading to ex-parte orders from both the AO and CIT(A)-NFAC. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 63,500/- was made without any material to show the source was unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering relevant facts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities by lower authorities but did not avail them. However, in the interest of natural justice, one last opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case and supporting evidence before the AO. The assessment order and appellate order were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that both the Ld.CIT(A) and AO had passed ex parte orders. Considering that the assessee had filed relevant documents for the first time, the Tribunal granted an opportunity for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities by lower authorities but did not avail them. However, in the interest of natural justice, one last opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case and supporting evidence before the AO. The assessment order and appellate order were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that interest earned from a cooperative bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO as the notice was issued to a dissolved entity. The Ld.CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to incorrect assertions contrary to the facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that the Investment Promotion Subsidy received by way of Output VAT is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. This decision followed a previous ruling by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for default, as per the provisions of the Act and judicial precedents. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the variation between the declared sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was less than 15%. Relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, it was concluded that such a negligible variation does not warrant any addition to the income. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was invalid because the issue regarding exemption under sections 54B and 54F was already examined by the AO during the original assessment, and the subsequent re-opening amounted to a review or change of opinion. Furthermore, the AO failed to provide reasons for reopening the assessment after four years as required by law, specifically the failure to disclose material facts fully and truly by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) could have considered the application by ignoring the incidental religious objects. The impugned order was set aside and the case was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that while the reasons for the delay were not supported by documentary evidence, considering the short delay of 116 days, it was inclined to condone the delay. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s action of dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without condoning it or adjudicating the grounds on merits, was not in consonance with the statutory right of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide the grounds of appeal under Section 250(6) of the Act. However, considering the submission that the assessment order was non-speaking and passed without proper opportunity, the Tribunal found merit in restoring the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to diligently file documents and the AO to adjudicate the expenditure claims according to law after hearing the assessee, without being influenced by any prior observations. The appeal against the rectification order was rendered infructuous. The Tribunal allowed ITA No.913/Chny/2024 for statistical purposes and dismissed ITA No.915/Chny/2024 as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 2016, includes subsidies in the definition of income. Therefore, the subsidy received by the assessee is rightly brought to tax.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grievance had been redressed due to the subsequent grant of registration. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee should not be penalized for the omission of their representative. The assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that a petition for condonation of delay was pending before the CBDT, which had a direct bearing on the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for denovo adjudication after the CBDT's decision on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were trade receipts from ration shops. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they should have been confronted with the materials used by the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated and wholly without jurisdiction due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after re-opening the assessment under Section 147. Section 292BB was held not to cure the failure to issue the notice.
The tribunal held that Section 12A, which deals with conditions for applicability of Sections 11 and 12, requires registration under Section 12AA but does not stipulate that the registration must be in force. Therefore, the denial of exemption based on this interpretation was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation report and substituting his own method. The Tribunal found that the assessee had justified the premium charged on the shares.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition on account of the factory building sale, as the transfer is effective upon registration. The disallowance of short-term capital loss was also confirmed, finding the share transaction to be not genuine due to lack of evidence and unusual circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed authorized the payment of interest on additional funds infused by partners, and the interest paid was within the 12% limit. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that continuation of registration under Section 12AA is a prerequisite for claiming exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income based on the profit and loss account, as the initial computation started from total receipts instead of net profit.