Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all material facts are disclosed and the assessee has a bonafide belief. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had a reasonable cause.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex parte without dealing with the merits of the additions. The assessee's counsel contended that no notice of hearing was received. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent regarding the service of notices and that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeals ex parte without dealing with the merits of the additions. The assessee's counsel contended that no notice of hearing was received. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was silent regarding the service of notices and that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence like break-ups of stamp paper purchases, cash deposits, and reconciliation statements, which indicated the cash was utilized for purchasing stamp papers. The AO and CIT(A) failed to refute the assessee's explanation with cogent material, and it was not a case of parallel business. The interest income was already offered for tax.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all material facts are disclosed and the assessee has a bonafide belief. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a co-operative bank with legal panel, could not claim a bonafide belief for the delay. Medical prescriptions provided did not consistently support the claim of prolonged ill health, and the timeline of events suggested the assessee was not incapacitated during the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee trust is enjoying exemption under sections 11 & 13 of the Act, the nature of expenditure (revenue or capital) is not material. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the purchase of PCM textbooks was therefore not tenable.
The Tribunal condoned delays in filing both appeals. For A.Y. 2016-17, it held that the disallowance for purchasing library books was untenable, as the nature of expenditure is immaterial for a trust enjoying exemption under sections 11 and 13, thereby allowing the appeal. For A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Addl/JCIT(A) to decide on merits, after condoning the delay that occurred at the lower appellate level.
The Tribunal noted that the plea of non-existence of the order u/s 143(1) was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and was a mixed question of fact or law, hence not entertained. For other arguments, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal considered judgments from the Supreme Court (Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.) and the Kerala High Court (PCIT v. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.) regarding business income and interest income respectively. It was held that Section 80P(2)(a)(i) applies to income from business with members, while Section 80P(2)(d) applies to interest income from investments with cooperative societies/banks registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee and did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, held that the interest income received from co-operative banks, Treasury, and Scheduled Banks is eligible for deduction under sections 80P(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health and the CA's non-compliance, citing sufficient reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the cash deposits were explained by substantial cash sales in the business, regulated by BPCL and RBI circulars. The capital introduction and cash credit were also found to be sufficiently supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal observed that the current appeal was a duplicate of another appeal already listed for hearing. The earlier appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28.02.2024.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice through the ITBA Portal was 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. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health and the CA's non-compliance, citing sufficient reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the cash deposits were explained by substantial cash sales in the business, regulated by BPCL and RBI circulars. The capital introduction and cash credit were also found to be sufficiently supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to respond to the notices was due to being uneducated and not maintaining an email ID. The AO also failed to follow the prescribed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for communication, such as sending notices via speed post and SMS. The assessee was also undergoing medical treatment for spine and neck injuries during the period.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 286 days in filing the appeal finding sufficient reasonable cause. The Tribunal further found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order without referring to submissions and evidence, hence the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 676 days in filing the appeal. The explanation provided for the delay, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, was deemed insufficient and not genuine, particularly for the post-Covid period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a licensed banking company or a cooperative bank, could not claim exemption from Section 269SS. The argument of a 'bonafide belief' or 'reasonable cause' due to a lack of banks in the area was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the issue hinges on whether Section 13(9) of the Act is applicable, which requires the return of income to be filed by the due date. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be cryptic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is procedural and the time limit prescribed is directory, not mandatory. The CPC was not justified in denying the foreign tax credit solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 67.
The tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, without legal heir substitution, is void ab initio and cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Act, following the Supreme Court's precedent in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The assessee's counsel argued that the assessment order was not received, and this contention was not controverted by the revenue. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh disposal.
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, without considering the fact that the assessee was suffering from cervical spondylitis and intervertebral disc prolapse, and was under treatment during the relevant period. This submission was not controverted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a licensed banking company or a cooperative bank, could not claim exemption from Section 269SS. The argument of a 'bonafide belief' or 'reasonable cause' due to a lack of banks in the area was rejected.
The CIT(A) passed a cryptic order dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unreasoned and lacking due consideration of the submissions.
The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the present appeal, concerning additions on reserves for bad and doubtful debts and provident fund fines, did not arise from the impugned order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the issue hinges on whether Section 13(9) of the Act is applicable, which requires the return of income to be filed by the due date. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be cryptic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions. Considering the interest of justice and a Kerala High Court decision, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in presuming that withdrawn money from SBI was used for other purposes without contrary evidence. The Tribunal also found the reasoning that cash deposits could not be made from cash sales to be incorrect, as the assessee did not claim the deposits were solely from cash sales.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had opted for DRC, but the application was not admitted as the variation exceeded the threshold limit. The AO passed the final assessment order in line with the draft order, and no illegality or perversity was found in the assessment order.
The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action without a speaking order. The Tribunal held that the NFAC confirmed the addition without addressing the grounds of appeal and submissions. Therefore, the matter requires a de novo disposal by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that filing the return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) is a mandatory condition precedent for claiming deduction under section 80P, as per section 80AC. Non-fulfillment of this condition renders the claim incorrect.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from treasury and scheduled banks by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. This was based on the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed a return of income and has also filed an application under section 119(2)(b) before the CBDT for condonation of delay, which is pending. Since no valid return has been accepted and the condonation application is pending, the appeal is considered premature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought not to have refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee, which included serious heart ailment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to cure the defects. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the matters back.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for interest received from scheduled banks and treasury. The findings for the lead case (ITA No.208/Coch/2025) were also applied to the other two appeals as the issues were identical.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest received from scheduled banks and treasury. It emphasized a liberal reading of Section 80P, noting that Section 80P(4) specifically excludes cooperative banks engaged in banking business.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate agricultural income at both the assessment and appellate stages. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the income from the disposal of land and buildings should have been assessed as business income under Section 28, not capital gains, as the assessee's own accounting treatment and business nature indicated. The PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were outside the scope of limited scrutiny and that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, despite a request for adjournment, violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the Holmium Laser Machine qualifies as life-saving equipment eligible for 40% depreciation. The Tribunal also noted that the loss on revaluation of hospital instruments was notional and not allowable under the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to cure the defects. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the matters back.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the incorrect premise that the assessee had withdrawn it, which was denied. The original intimation under Section 143(1) was also passed without due process for the charitable institution.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without examining the merits of the case, which amounted to a denial of natural justice. The rejection of the adjournment request on technical grounds was considered unjust.