Loading ITAT cases…
160 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that interest income received from co-operative banks registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). However, interest income from commercial banks is to be treated as income from other sources, liable to tax under Section 56, with eligible expenses to be deducted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it failed to consider all relevant documents (Annexures 2, 3, and 5) submitted by the assessee regarding the gross profit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider all annexures and pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee.
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.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits, emphasizing that a CIT(A) must decide cases on merits even *ex parte*. Citing *PCIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra*, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a *de novo* decision on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
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.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adequately consider the assessee's submissions and material on record. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh (de novo) adjudication on the merits of the depreciation and bad debt disallowances.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s rejection was partly based on unsigned English translations, but original Malayalam lease deeds, which were signed, were produced before the Tribunal. The assessee also furnished bank statements evidencing agricultural receipts and sale agreements for trees. Given this, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide necessary evidence regarding land ownership and agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. It further clarified that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, which makes disallowance u/s. 14A applicable irrespective of earning exempt income, is prospective and thus does not apply to AY 2013-14.
Relying on the jurisdictional Kerala High Court judgment in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Tribunal held that interest income received by the assessee co-operative society from other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the claim for deduction u/s 80P if the assessee's pending delay condonation application for filing the belated return is accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that interest income from investments made out of surplus funds with other co-operative societies qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and interest income from fixed deposits with SBI and treasury qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), citing settled Jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of electricity charges paid to KSEB under Section 40A(3), holding that KSEB, being a government company, falls outside the purview of the section, citing relevant precedents and CBDT circulars. For the disallowances of depreciation and interest (grounds 2, 3 & 4), the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, as the CIT(A) had failed to consider additional evidence presented by the appellant demonstrating that the construction was complete and assets were ready for use.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A) accepted new evidence from the assessee for the first time without seeking a remand report from the AO, which is a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to provide the AO an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A) accepted new evidence from the assessee for the first time without seeking a remand report from the AO, which is a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to provide the AO an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte due to the assessee's non-response to hearing notices.
The ITAT observed that the appellant claimed to have collected SBN from patients for emergency medical services and had also submitted a Ministry of Finance notification authorizing hospitals to accept SBN in such situations. As the lower authorities failed to examine the names of patients, the ITAT restored the matter to the AO for a de novo disposal with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the addition of rent payable under Section 154, as there was no material on record to suggest the amount called for addition, and it did not constitute a 'mistake apparent from record.' Therefore, the order passed by the AO under Section 154 was quashed.
Following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that interest earned by the assessee from depositing surplus funds in permitted banks, including District Co-operative Banks and Treasury, constitutes profits attributable to its main business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for such interest income.
The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay due to a lack of corroborative evidence for the assessee's claims. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the explanation for delay not bona fide and confirming that the CBDT's extension of the due date was only for belated and revised returns, not for original returns to claim Section 80P deduction.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting no objection from the Senior Departmental Representative. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive the appeal if their declaration under the VSVS 2024 scheme is subsequently rejected for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it only indicated "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income," while the penalty order included "concealment of income." Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in PCIT v. Shri Ambady Krishna Menon, the Tribunal concluded that such a defective notice, failing to specify the exact ground for penalty, renders the imposition of penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was bad in law because it did not specify the exact limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed as unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the finding of the lower authorities was contrary to the settled position of law, as a co-operative society without banking licenses cannot be considered a co-operative bank, citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee co-operative bank is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). This decision was based on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra), which distinguished an earlier judgment.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as the investments yielding exempt income were made from the company's own funds. However, the disallowance of contribution to the employees' welfare fund was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee co-operative bank is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). This decision was based on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra), which distinguished an earlier judgment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the present appeal, as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as the investments yielding exempt income were made from the company's own funds. However, the disallowance of contribution to the employees' welfare fund was upheld.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271B for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation, having been initiated after a lapse of ten years. For assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the Tribunal found that the special audit conducted under Section 142(2A) served the same objective as the Section 44AB audit, and the delay was a reasonable cause due to the State Co-operative Department's audit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271B for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ambiguous for not providing reasons for rejecting the delay condonation request. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the finding of the lower authorities was contrary to the settled position of law, as a co-operative society without banking licenses cannot be considered a co-operative bank, citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee co-operative bank is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). This decision was based on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra), which distinguished an earlier judgment.
The Tribunal held that a donation made by one charitable institution to another charitable institution with similar objects, both registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, constitutes an application of income for charitable purposes. Citing several High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2002, only imposed an embargo on donations from accumulated income for subsequent use under Section 11(2), but not from current income. As the donation was made out of current income, the Tribunal directed the AO to treat it as an application of income and delete the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee co-operative bank is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Act if the return of income is not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). This decision was based on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (supra), which distinguished an earlier judgment.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals, granting the assessee liberty to revive them if their application under the DTVSV scheme (Form No. 1) is rejected for any reason. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals, granting the assessee liberty to revive them if their application under the DTVSV scheme (Form No. 1) is rejected for any reason. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals, granting the assessee liberty to revive them if their application under the DTVSV scheme (Form No. 1) is rejected for any reason. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on moulds and tools (Ground 2). It ruled that disallowance u/s.14A was not warranted as the assessee's own funds far exceeded investments yielding exempt income (Grounds 3 & 4). It also held that deposits from distributors were refundable and not a reimbursement, so they should not reduce the cost of freezers for depreciation under Section 43(1) (Ground 5).
The Tribunal held that without a banking license, the co-operative society cannot be considered a co-operative bank. Relying on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents, it was decided that the appellant is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from other co-operative banks.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals, granting the assessee liberty to revive them if their application under the DTVSV scheme (Form No. 1) is rejected for any reason. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appellant's grounds of appeal without passing a reasoned order. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after considering the statement of facts and passing a speaking order, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not provide a basis for their adopted FMV, and SRO guidance values are not always definitive. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer it to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for proper ascertainment of the correct FMV as on April 1, 2001.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation credible. It further held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if ex parte, and accordingly remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) denied the appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show cause notice by granting an unreasonably short time, violating principles of natural justice and departmental SOP. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing the appellant a proper hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds of appeal or written submissions. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision (de novo disposal) after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the finding of the lower authorities was contrary to the settled position of law, as a co-operative society without banking licenses cannot be considered a co-operative bank, citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the FMV, accepting the assessee's valuation based on backward indexation and a valuation report, stating that SRO guideline values are not always representative. However, the appeal was dismissed for the Section 54/54C deduction, as the AO correctly denied the claim due to the belated deposit in specified bonds, and the AO has no power to condone such delay.
The Tribunal held that notices served through the ITBA portal are not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, citing a P&H High Court judgment. Finding that proper notices were not served and opportunity was denied, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Act does not mandate maintaining books of account for this assessee. Finding it plausible that the cash deposits were from business receipts, the Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in making the addition and directed its deletion.