Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 2 of 4
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Before the ITAT, the assessee presented a new explanation, claiming the deposits were from an opening cash balance, but again failed to provide substantiating evidence. Given the inconsistent and unsubstantiated explanations for the source of funds, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as there was no obligation for the appellant to pay self-assessment tax without the additions. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to decide the issues afresh after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition. Remittances received from abroad by a non-resident are not taxable in India unless they accrue or arise in India, and the assessee's salary income credited to an NRE account abroad was not taxable in India.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting a significant delay of 572 days in filing. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reason for delay, which attributed it to the illness of the tax consultant, emphasizing that a litigant cannot shift the burden and that those who delay in approaching the court should not be granted extraordinary relief, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined the appellant's application for condonation of a 455-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided, including waiting for legal opinion and a beneficial High Court judgment, did not constitute a reasonable cause for the significant delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to delay and laches.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of the Section 54 deduction. It ruled that the appellant failed to demonstrate completion of the new house construction or deposit unutilised sale proceeds in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, rejecting the condonation of delay petition. It found the appellant's explanation for the 511-day delay unsubstantiated and not bona fide, lacking crucial details about the pending rectification appeal cited by the appellant.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the source of cash deposits by not providing details of land holding, cultivation proof, average yield, or the PAN of the buyer, Shri Manoj Kumar. Consequently, the addition of unexplained money was justified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed by estimating profit and no prejudice was caused by the non-maintenance of books, it was not a fit case for levying penalty. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.
For ITA 721/Coch/2025, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication due to the CIT(A) not adjudicating all grounds and the validity of the Section 148A notice. For ITA 727/Coch/2025, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order condoning the delay in filing the return of income under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method under 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. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method under 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. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method under 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. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the present appeal, determining it to be a duplicate. The issues raised in this appeal had already been addressed in the previous hearing of the original appeal.
The Tribunal found the appellant's stand contradictory, as they initially offered the amount as additional income but subsequently claimed it as turnover or accumulated gold without providing supporting evidence for either. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the AO had passed a best judgment assessment due to the appellant's failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1). Acknowledging the reasons for non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method under 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. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
For ITA 721/Coch/2025, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication due to the CIT(A) not adjudicating all grounds and the validity of the Section 148A notice. For ITA 727/Coch/2025, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order condoning the delay in filing the return of income under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances cannot be made without rejecting the books of account. It clarified that in cases of alleged bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded therein should be added to the taxable income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to apply an appropriate percentage of profit instead of an ad hoc disallowance.
The Tribunal noted a 520-day delay in filing the appeal. The explanation of 'wrong advice from a tax consultant,' lacking specific details, was deemed not bona fide or genuine. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is a primary agricultural society, not a co-operative bank, and therefore its claim for deduction is not hit by Section 80P(4). Citing the precedent of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80P.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim, where all particulars were disclosed, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be unwarranted.
Following the jurisdictional High Court judgment in CIT vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., the Tribunal held that interest earned by the co-operative society on deposits of its surplus funds in banks constitutes an enhancement of profits from its principal business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, such interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the appellant, being a primary agricultural credit co-operative society without a banking license from the RBI, is not classified as a co-operative bank and is therefore not hit by the provisions of Section 80P(4). Following the precedent set by the Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(26AAB) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, effective from April 1, 2009, making it prospective and applicable from AY 2009-10 onwards. Relying on an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision and CBDT Circular, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption for AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment effective July 1, 2016, expenditure incurred on R&D, even if not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL, qualifies for deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility itself was approved.
The Tribunal held that remittances to an NRE account by a non-resident are not taxable in India as they are received outside the taxable territories. The addition for the property transaction was also deleted as the assessee provided confirmation and the explanation was not rejected with cogent reasons.
The Tribunal held that since the loan was received from an NRE account, the source of funds from abroad cannot be questioned by the assessing authority. Therefore, the creditworthiness of the lender is deemed to be satisfied.
The tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IB is merely procedural and that the assessee claimed to have faced technical glitches while uploading the form. Considering this, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CPC for a consequential order, directing them to take Form 10-IB into consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine as the appellant provided sufficient cause for delay, citing a paralytic stroke and reliance on a negligent tax practitioner. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 114 days and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal ruled that any disallowances made by the AO that increase the business income of a co-operative society, which is eligible for Section 80P deduction, would still qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act. This position was reinforced by CBDT Circular No. 31/16 dated 02.11.2016. Accordingly, the AO was directed to allow the deduction under Section 80P.
Following the Kerala High Court decision in CIT vs. Sahayadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., the Tribunal held that miscellaneous income and interest earned from state treasury/scheduled banks by a primary agricultural credit co-operative society are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a). The interest on surplus funds, even if deposited in other financial institutions, maintains its character as profits attributable to the main business of providing credit facilities to members.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of a Rule 46A application is merely a procedural functionality and the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the additional evidence, after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was squarely applicable. This Explanation creates an unrebuttable statutory presumption of concealment of income when additional income is disclosed consequent to search operations, thus overriding the argument regarding the specificity of the show cause notice.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 375 days in filing the appeals. It found that the appellant did not provide sufficient reasons to condone the entire period of delay, despite submitting a medical certificate for an eye operation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals on the ground of un-condoned delay.
The tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IB is merely procedural and that the assessee claimed to have faced technical glitches while uploading the form. Considering this, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CPC for a consequential order, directing them to take Form 10-IB into consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence for the condonation of the 131-day delay. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after affording the appellant a proper hearing.
The ITAT found no illegality in the CPC's disallowance due to late filing and upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the appeal delay, finding no justifiable reason. It clarified that if the Pr. CIT later condones the delay in the original return filing, the intimation could be amended.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support the explanation that the cash deposit was from the sale consideration of immovable property. Merely offering the income without substantiating its source cannot be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant, during the appeal hearing, provided bank statements showing transfers to onion suppliers and a sample agency agreement. Since these materials indicated that the money did not belong to the appellant and were not verified by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, instructing that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not properly address the assessee's contention that the bank credits constituted business receipts already accounted for and offered to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant's explanations and details regarding the expenditure and sundry creditors were not properly evaluated by the CIT(A). Thus, the matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment to verify the details and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment. Therefore, in accordance with Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, the present penalty appeal is also remanded back to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay of 375 days in filing the appeals. It found that the appellant did not provide sufficient reasons to condone the entire period of delay, despite submitting a medical certificate for an eye operation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals on the ground of un-condoned delay.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is a primary agricultural society without a banking license, and thus not a co-operative bank. Therefore, the provisions of Section 80P(4) are not applicable. Citing the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that if the confirmation letters were defective, the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify them or directed the AO to examine the parties under Section 131. The mere absence of a cancellation deed does not automatically render the explanation false. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without disposing of the 5 grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order without adequately addressing the appellant's grounds of appeal. Thus, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence for the condonation of the 131-day delay. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after affording the appellant a proper hearing.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to delay, without properly considering the detailed explanation provided for the delay, was legally untenable. The ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits, after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.