Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that recording satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order concerning a violation of Section 269SS is a mandatory prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Since the assessment order in this case lacked such a record of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were deemed invalid, and the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT was held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition as the DR accepted the nature and source of the loans. For the Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) additions, the matters were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination, as the AO had not adequately analyzed individual transactions or verified the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the ₹60 lakhs threshold limit as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 24.10.2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, is invalid in the eyes of law. The reasoning is based on the fact that the order was passed without quoting the DIN in its body. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not contend that the case fell under the 'exceptional circumstances' as outlined in Para No. 3 of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the provisions of Para No. 4 of the Circular apply, which states that any communication not in conformity with the circular shall be treated as invalid and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal further observed that the subsequent action of the AO communicating a DIN generated five days later (on 29.10.2019) does not resurrect the invalid order. As the assessee succeeded on this legal issue, the grounds of appeal on merits were not examined, being academic. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation.
The Tribunal observed that a new clause (iv)(B) inserted into Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, effective 01.10.2024, allows applications for approval at any time after commencement of activities. Since the CIT(E)'s rejection order was passed after this amendment, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the assessee's application as filed under the new clause (iv)(B) and process it as per law after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the agricultural income claimed, beyond possessing land holdings. The lack of land records, cultivation details, sale particulars, and expenditure proof rendered the income claim unverified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and partially confirmed by the CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the agricultural income claimed, beyond possessing land holdings. The lack of land records, cultivation details, sale particulars, and expenditure proof rendered the income claim unverified. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and partially confirmed by the CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE applies to transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Since the transactions in question were on or before March 31, 2017, the 60% tax rate was not applicable. The Revenue's appeal was found to be hit by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) rightly set aside the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the AO and remitted the matter for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the AO under Section 143(3) is without jurisdiction and stands quashed, as the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The Tribunal allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee invoking Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the decision in CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on Section 292BB, noting that the proviso to Section 292BB would not be attracted given the assessee's objection to the notice. Regarding the addition of Rs.32,53,990/- towards undisclosed business income, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to substantiate that the noting during the survey represented actual sales. It held that an arbitrary estimation of income solely on survey noting, when books of account are accepted, is not permissible. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. Concerning the addition of Rs.72,20,000/- under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that these were opening balances and not fresh credits during the year. It reiterated the principle that Section 68 applies only to credits received during the year. Therefore, no addition under Section 68 was warranted, and the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) has the power to condone delays in filing applications for 80G registration, similar to powers for 12A registration. The Tribunal also noted that the ITAT itself possesses powers to condone such delays.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application by going beyond the scope of verifying the genuineness of the objects and proposed activities. The inquiry at the registration stage is confined to these aspects, not a full assessment.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not a 'sufficient cause' and that the assessee exhibited a lackadaisical approach. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had arbitrarily disallowed the claim for deduction of profit attributable to member business without concrete reasons. Noting that similar claims had been accepted in the assessee's own case in previous assessment years and there was no material change in facts or law, the Tribunal, applying the principle of consistency and judicial discipline, deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed under Section 80G(5) are directory and not mandatory. Considering the recent amendments and consistent judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the delayed application as filed under the relevant clause and decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications under Section 80G(5) are directory and not mandatory. It directed the CIT(E) to treat the delayed application as filed under the relevant clause and decide on merits.