Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee co-operative society from its investment with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The definition of 'Co-operative Society' under section 2(19) of the Act and judicial precedents, specifically the High Court of Madras in the case of Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd., were considered.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty order arose from the quantum assessment. Since the quantum assessment had been set aside by the Tribunal, the penalty order lacked a foundational basis and was therefore set aside. The matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the activities of the trust are charitable in nature. The denial of exemption was based on the proviso to Section 2(15) due to surplus generated from milk sales. However, the Tribunal noted that the exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied if the profit surplus is utilized for charitable purposes, as held by the Supreme Court in Thiagarajar Charities.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal due to the Secretary's COVID-19 illness, increased workload, and infrastructural constraints in adapting to the faceless regime constitutes a "sufficient cause". The delay deserves condonation to promote substantial justice over technical considerations.
The Tribunal noted that the trust had only provided financial statements up to March 31, 2024, for its first year of operation and had subsequently undertaken charitable activities. While the CIT(E) rejected the application, the revenue did not seriously object to granting the assessee another opportunity to present necessary details.
The CIT(A) deleted the ad-hoc disallowance, holding that such disallowance cannot be made without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts. The Tribunal, perusing the material, agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that no ad-hoc disallowance can be made without specific defects, and that the assessee had discharged its onus.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as they were made from opening cash balance and daily business receipts, which were duly recorded in the company's regular books of account. The AO had not rejected the books of account, and no incriminating material was produced to show that the deposits were unexplained.
The Tribunal noted that the trust had only provided financial statements up to March 31, 2024, for its first year of operation and had subsequently undertaken charitable activities. While the CIT(E) rejected the application, the revenue did not seriously object to granting the assessee another opportunity to present necessary details.
The Tribunal held that amendments to Section 50C, which introduced a tolerance band for variations between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, are retrospective. Therefore, if the difference falls within this band, no addition can be made under Section 56(2)(vii) or Section 50C.
For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to the incorrect sanctioning authority, thus quashing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and lacked the mandatory approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required by Section 151(ii). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the matter of cash deposits requires fresh adjudication by the AO and that Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18. It also held that Section 44AD is not applicable to remuneration and share of profits from a partnership firm.
For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to the incorrect sanctioning authority, thus quashing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's 'satisfaction' that the assessee's suo moto disallowance was not acceptable was not recorded in writing and thus vitiated the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal also decided to remit the additional grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the reopening was done beyond four years, and the reasons for reopening were based on information already available during the original assessment, suggesting a change of opinion. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal ground regarding change of opinion and dismissed the appeal on merits due to lack of documentation.
The High Court directed the assessee to pursue appellate remedies and granted liberty to file an application for confirmation letters and books of accounts. The CIT(A) did not consider these directions and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not consider the High Court's directions and decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Act can only be invoked if investments are not recorded in books of account and the assessee fails to explain their nature and source. In this case, the deposits were reflected in bank accounts and supported by entries in the cash book. The mere absence of third-party confirmations does not automatically justify the addition. Furthermore, taxing entire deposits would amount to taxing turnover, not income.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court, in similar cases, directed the condonation of delay in filing returns for claiming deductions under Section 80P. The High Court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment stating that procedural delays should not impede justice.
The assessee's AR requested withdrawal of the appeal as no grievance remained. The Ld.DR did not object. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's plea to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1,143 days in filing the appeal. The explanation of lack of education and dependence on tax practitioners was considered too general and lacked specific evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of the derivative loss was unsustainable as it was solely based on the SEBI Adjudication Order without conducting an independent inquiry or gathering corroborative evidence. Proceedings under the Income Tax Act are independent of regulatory proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind and did not specify which limb of Section 270A(9) was attracted for levying penalty for misreporting income. The penalty order was found to be non-speaking and lacking in reasons, thus unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, as amended, is applicable to advances and not to the full sale consideration paid at the time of registration. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial burden of proving the nature and source of the cash by showing it was withdrawn from her bank account. The AO failed to disprove that the withdrawn amount was not spent, invested, or deployed elsewhere. Therefore, the onus shifted to the AO, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, particularly regarding the adjustments made based on the tax audit report and the dismissal of the rectification petition. The assessee's request for an opportunity to present its case through video conferencing was also denied.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was bad in law because the AO did not obtain the sanction from the specified authority under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act, as the reopening was initiated after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the case of Core Logistic Company.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, particularly regarding the adjustments made based on the tax audit report and the dismissal of the rectification petition. The assessee's request for an opportunity to present its case through video conferencing was also denied.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a belated return and provided financial details, including a turnover exceeding the credited amount. The CIT(A) correctly found that the credits represented business receipts and were not liable for addition under section 69A, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's legal contention that the notice issued under section 148 on 05.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, referring to Supreme Court decisions. The Court noted that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 would have to be dropped.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously deleted the disallowance of bad debts in proceedings related to section 143(1). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider this subsequent relief when passing its order. The Tribunal also observed that no addition was made in the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) itself, thus the disallowance in the computation sheet could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of delay, as the delay was not deliberate and the explanation was plausible. On merits, the Tribunal found that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an addition made under the deeming provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) without any independent finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee to be withdrawn. The decision was based on the assessee's submission that the disputes, which were the subject matter of these appeals for AYs 2019-20 and 2022-23, had been resolved through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under Article 27 of the India-Singapore DTAA. This resolution was confirmed by a communication dated 06.02.2026. The assessee had filed a letter dated 11.02.2026 expressing its desire to withdraw the appeals in light of this resolution, in accordance with Rule 44G(8) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the resolution of the dispute and the assessee's request, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on commission payments and partly deleted the disallowance on professional fees. For the Section 80IA deduction, the CIT(A) upheld the assessee's position, relying on Supreme Court decisions regarding the valuation of captive power consumption. Regarding disallowance for commission paid to domestic agents, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and allow deductions where TDS was actually deducted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounts were audited and the SBN deposits were recorded in the books and VAT returns. The AO did not reject the books of accounts and accepted the returned income from turnover. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents and held that adding the SBN deposit amount as unexplained would amount to double addition.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be equated with a show cause notice and must be issued only if the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 are satisfied. The Revenue must demonstrate that the notice was validly issued within the period of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in making the disallowance. The assessee's submission that gifts were given for every sale, irrespective of the quantity, was considered. The Tribunal found that the reconciliation of balances and the provided details substantiated the entire sales promotion expenses incurred for stainless steel vessels.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's representative's submission that the assessee was unaware of the notices due to computer illiteracy and dependence on a consultant who failed to inform them properly. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's genuine lack of awareness of the proceedings and the non-deliberate nature of the delay. The AO had treated the entire salary as income without considering deductions and TDS.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty order arose from the quantum assessment. Since the quantum assessment had been set aside by the Tribunal, the penalty order lacked a foundational basis and was therefore set aside. The matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the entire TDS credit was paid to the government exchequer and the assessee's wife did not claim TDS. The assessee corrected the discrepancy in the annual information statement, which was ignored. The Tribunal found it proper to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow full credit of TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 2.94 crores as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee's submitted bills were found to be defective and lacked essential details, and the assessee had not complied with mandatory audit requirements.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee to be withdrawn. The decision was based on the assessee's submission that the disputes, which were the subject matter of these appeals for AYs 2019-20 and 2022-23, had been resolved through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under Article 27 of the India-Singapore DTAA. This resolution was confirmed by a communication dated 06.02.2026. The assessee had filed a letter dated 11.02.2026 expressing its desire to withdraw the appeals in light of this resolution, in accordance with Rule 44G(8) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the resolution of the dispute and the assessee's request, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Revenue's appeal was prayed to be treated as withdrawn by the Ld. DR due to the merger and subsequent filing of an appeal in Delhi. Considering the facts and circumstances, the tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of activities does not necessarily imply a non-genuine trust, especially when steps were taken towards its objects. The issues regarding fixed assets and loans were also found to be satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of the sub-clause was a technical and procedural error that should not defeat substantial rights. It also noted that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the proviso for condoning delay and the possibility of a reasonable cause for the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the appellant's ignorance of the NFAC order as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had condoned the delay in filing the return of income. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the AO/CPC to amend the intimation u/s 143(1) in light of the Chief Commissioner's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was corroborated by the purchaser's statement and that the assessee had disclosed the receipt in his earlier return. The Tribunal found no positive evidence to contradict the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of activities does not necessarily imply a non-genuine trust, especially when steps towards establishing activities were taken. The Tribunal also found the explanations regarding fixed assets and loans satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains arising from the asset transferred without consideration are statutorily taxable in the hands of the transferor spouse (husband) under Section 64(1)(iv). The reassessment proceedings were also found to be unsustainable.