Loading ITAT cases…
160 orders · Page 1 of 4
The ITAT ruled that the notice issued by the CIT(A) through the ITBA portal was not a valid service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Following a High Court precedent, the ITAT remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that since the appellant trust lacked registration under Section 12AA of the Act, the voluntary contributions received, even if for a building fund, were taxable as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act and did not qualify for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in estimating the business profit under Section 44AD of the Act, and thus, the addition of Rs. 5,92,823/- under the head 'business' was confirmed. However, since income was estimated under Section 44AD, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the separate addition of Rs. 3,93,000/- made on account of cash deposits under the head 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had not considered or referred to the DRP proceedings, the matter must be restored to the AO to await DRP directions. The AO is then directed to pass a fresh final assessment order incorporating the DRP's directions, keeping all other contentions open.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly addressed the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, specifically concerning the recording of satisfaction by the AOs of both the searched person and the assessee, and the non-availability of seized material to the appellant. Thus, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory, and since the form was available with the CPC at the time of processing the return, the benefit of the new tax regime should not have been denied. The CPC was directed to amend the intimation to allow the benefit of Section 115BAC.
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for admission of additional evidence, including invoices and lorry receipts, to prove the sales to Thettayil Traders. Satisfied with the reasons for not presenting this evidence earlier, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to reconsider the issue afresh, taking into account the newly submitted evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering its merits, as Section 250(6) of the Act mandates framing points of determination and a detailed discussion. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's explanation for cash deposits from student fees could not be entirely ruled out. However, since the AO had not properly examined the veracity of this explanation, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination of the records and explanation provided by the appellant.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that since the appellant trust lacked registration under Section 12AA of the Act, the voluntary contributions received, even if for a building fund, were taxable as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act and did not qualify for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations do not form part of taxable income, but for donations to be considered corpus funds, donors must provide specific directions. As this is a question of fact requiring examination of evidence, the matter is restored to the AO to verify if the donations were indeed corpus funds.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in initiating Section 154 proceedings as the Form 10B discrepancy constituted a mistake apparent from record. However, the matter was remanded to the AO with a direction to redetermine the correct amount of income applied for charitable purposes, considering all evidence and not relying solely on the audit report.
The Tribunal ruled that non-filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and does not amount to an 'incorrect claim' for adjustment under Section 143(1). Citing precedent, it held the CPC's adjustment was invalid in law and directed the intimation to be amended.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks falls under Section 80P(2)(d) and is eligible for deduction. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to properly address the assessee's challenge regarding the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, specifically concerning the lack of satisfaction recording and the non-availability of seized material. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, finding them within the time limit under Section 149(1)(c) for foreign assets and supported by reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. However, it held that the investments made outside India by a non-resident Indian were not taxable in India under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, as there was no evidence to prove the funds originated from taxable income sourced in India. Therefore, the addition made was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks falls under Section 80P(2)(d) and is eligible for deduction. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The ITAT condoned a 22-day delay in the appeal before it. It found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice service or affording the appellant reasonable opportunity to explain the delay. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo disposal after a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not Section 144, indicating that the Assessing Officer accepted subsequent compliance. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that in such cases, previous defaults are deemed ignored, and the default cannot be considered willful. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was patently wrong and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that at the time of registration, the CIT(E) must ascertain if the trust is charitable based on its objects. It was found that one of the trust's objects involved canvassing for election candidates, which constitutes political activity and not charitable activity. Since the appellant failed to prove its other activities were charitable, the rejection was justified.
The ITAT condoned a 22-day delay in the appeal before it. It found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice service or affording the appellant reasonable opportunity to explain the delay. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo disposal after a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, taking note of the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The order was pronounced in open court on 29th April, 2025.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to properly address the assessee's challenge regarding the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, specifically concerning the lack of satisfaction recording and the non-availability of seized material. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte, citing settled legal position and a Bombay High Court decision. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) failed to properly address the assessee's challenge regarding the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, specifically concerning the lack of satisfaction recording and the non-availability of seized material. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks falls under Section 80P(2)(d) and is eligible for deduction. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.
The Tribunal held that merely offering food to devotees of Lord Ayyappa does not automatically render the assessee's activities purely religious. It set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order rejecting regular registration under Section 12AB and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to verify other conditions for Section 12AA registration. Consequently, the appeal against the denial of Section 80G approval was also restored to the CIT (Exemption).
The Tribunal found that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance, made without rejecting the books of accounts, was based purely on suspicion and conjectures, lacking specific evidence of discrepancy in the vouchers. It held that suspicion cannot substitute proof and the AO failed to provide a basis for the 20% disallowance. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 12,79,633/- was deleted as unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and received Form 2, and the learned D.R. had no objection. In accordance with sections 91(2) and 92(1) of the DTVSV Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to seek reinstatement if the DTVSV application is not accepted for any reason.
The ITAT condoned the 141-day delay in filing the appeal. Citing a High Court judgment, the ITAT ruled that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not valid. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption by the CPC for non-filing of the audit report in Form 10B within the due date was not valid. The filing of the audit report is procedural, and its non-filing does not constitute an incorrect claim, which is a prerequisite for adjustment under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption by the CPC for non-filing of the audit report in Form 10B within the due date was not valid. The filing of the audit report is procedural, and its non-filing does not constitute an incorrect claim, which is a prerequisite for adjustment under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without disposing of it on merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and established legal precedent. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, finding them within the time limit under Section 149(1)(c) for foreign assets and supported by reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. However, it held that the investments made outside India by a non-resident Indian were not taxable in India under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act, as there was no evidence to prove the funds originated from taxable income sourced in India. Therefore, the addition made was not sustained.
The ITAT condoned a 22-day delay in the appeal before it. It found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice service or affording the appellant reasonable opportunity to explain the delay. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo disposal after a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee possessed supporting documents but failed to furnish translated copies and proper details or verification. Consequently, all three contested additions concerning agricultural income, gifts from relatives, and sale of wood were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to produce all necessary translated documents and details for re-examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's withdrawal request and the receipt of Form 2 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee retaining the liberty to approach the Tribunal if any adverse order is passed under the Scheme.
The Tribunal held that since the earlier physically filed appeal covering the same subject matter had already been disposed of, the present appeal filed through e-filing was deemed infructuous. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed without further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mere existence of a clause in the trust deed allowing for honorarium/salary to trustees does not render the trust non-genuine or ineligible for registration. Section 13(3) is applicable only when actual payments are made and are in excess of reasonable remuneration, which was not the case here.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay, found that the assessee was not callous. Prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the 145-day delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application for registration solely on the ground that the assessee failed to file any reply or documents in response to the hearing notice dated January 4, 2024, and the show cause notice dated January 16, 2024. The assessee, in its written statement, explained that the delay was due to the Managing Trustee's daughter's marriage on January 29, 2024, and that an adjournment request was uploaded in response to the show cause notice. Considering these submissions and in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to provide necessary information and records, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard was to be granted. The Tribunal cautioned that further default would not entitle the assessee to leniency. The ratio decidendi is that where a reasonable explanation for non-compliance is provided due to unavoidable personal circumstances, and an attempt to seek adjournment was made, the matter should be reconsidered to ensure fair play, rather than outright rejection.
The Tribunal condoned a 92-day delay in filing the appeal, applying the principles for condonation of delay. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits or providing a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction for the assessee to produce all necessary documents.
The Tribunal deleted the protective addition made under Section 68, stating that a protective addition cannot be made when no substantive addition exists in the hands of the other assessee (the managing trustee). For the disallowance of travel expenses, the matter was remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide evidence of expenditure, outcome, and business relevance.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment was completed under Section 144 and the assessee was not given a fair opportunity. In the interest of justice and fair play, the entire issue was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries before making additions under Section 68. The assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing details of debenture holders, including names, addresses, and PANs where available. The Tribunal noted that for amounts below Rs. 20,000/- received in cash, proving creditworthiness of each individual debenture holder to the same extent as for a large sum from a single creditor might not be feasible or required, especially when the statute (Section 114B) provides exemptions for certain transaction values not requiring PAN. The Tribunal also observed that regulatory authorities like RBI and Registrar of Companies had accepted the details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 were set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction to conduct proper inquiries, including issuing notices under Section 133(6) if necessary, and to hear the assessee. The consequential disallowance of interest on debentures was also remitted. The disallowance of ESI and gratuity premium was upheld as correct, as the CIT(A) followed the Supreme Court judgment and provisions of the Act respectively. The issue of debenture issue expenses was remitted along with the Section 68 addition. The disallowance of PF was upheld. The disallowance of NPA on personal loan was upheld as the assessee's business includes granting such advances. The issue regarding settlement before the Settlement Commission was not explicitly decided but impliedly not a basis for upholding the additions.
Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal held that a co-operative society is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). Consequently, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction was confirmed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee's non-appearance was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper opportunity of being heard and to present all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries before making additions under Section 68. The assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing details of debenture holders, including names, addresses, and PANs where available. The Tribunal noted that for amounts below Rs. 20,000/- received in cash, proving creditworthiness of each individual debenture holder to the same extent as for a large sum from a single creditor might not be feasible or required, especially when the statute (Section 114B) provides exemptions for certain transaction values not requiring PAN. The Tribunal also observed that regulatory authorities like RBI and Registrar of Companies had accepted the details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 were set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction to conduct proper inquiries, including issuing notices under Section 133(6) if necessary, and to hear the assessee. The consequential disallowance of interest on debentures was also remitted. The disallowance of ESI and gratuity premium was upheld as correct, as the CIT(A) followed the Supreme Court judgment and provisions of the Act respectively. The issue of debenture issue expenses was remitted along with the Section 68 addition. The disallowance of PF was upheld. The disallowance of NPA on personal loan was upheld as the assessee's business includes granting such advances. The issue regarding settlement before the Settlement Commission was not explicitly decided but impliedly not a basis for upholding the additions.