Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal issues regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction before setting aside the assessment. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to enable proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee commenced its activities on 30.01.2023 and was required to file Form 10AB for final registration within six months, i.e., by 29.07.2023. While the CBDT extended the filing deadline to 30.06.2024, the assessee filed on 29.09.2024, a delay of approximately three months. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay – a bona fide misinterpretation of the law regarding the due date – plausible, given the complexity of Section 12A(1)(ac). Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to examine the application afresh, considering the reasons for delay and providing the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard on facts and law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's uncle had confirmed using the credit cards for his business and making the payments, a similar explanation accepted in the previous year's assessment. Considering the assessee's personal difficulties (mother's death, illness) which hindered his participation in lower proceedings, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to furnish fresh documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of substantial justice and a lenient approach. It further held that the interest paid on borrowed capital utilized for business purposes, even if through subsidiaries or associates, is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
The provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain any findings or decisions made by the Tribunal. It does not address any of the issues that may have been raised by the parties. Consequently, there are no reasons provided for any decision, no ratio decidendi that could be cited, and no operative directions such as remand or deletion of additions. The judgment is silent on what the Tribunal decided and the basis for its decision.
The Tribunal held that as per the amended Rule 128(9) applicable for A.Y 2022-23, Form 67 can be filed by the end of the assessment year. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the due date and the amended rule was applicable, the denial of credit was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits from a refund of advance for a land purchase, supported by additional documentary evidence, warranted verification. The matter was therefore restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 11-day delay, following the Supreme Court's lenient approach for delay condonation. On merits, the Tribunal ruled that the addition under Section 69A was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer failed to establish if the cash deposit consisted of demonetized notes (SBNs) or regular currency, and there was no abnormal deviation in sales or cash deposits compared to previous financial years. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without properly verifying the service of notices. The assessee had provided both an email address and a physical address for communication, and notices were sent only to the email, which went unattended, leading to justifiable reasons for non-participation. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of whether the land was a capital asset was not properly addressed.
The Tribunal held that since the slump sale included land, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54EC to the extent of the book value of the land. The Tribunal also noted that the income tax return form itself provides for such a claim.
The Tribunal held that the allotment of new shares is a creation of property and not a transfer, thus not attracting Section 56(2)(viia). The disallowance under Section 14A was also contested.
The Tribunal held that for an existing trust with provisional registration, the relevant time limit for filing Form 10AB is six months prior to the expiry of the provisional registration (i.e., by 30-09-2024 for an expiry in March 2025). The CBDT circular extending the deadline to 30-06-2024 was for AY 2022-23, not the present AY. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee on 28/09/2024 was within the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Section 50C and treating the SRO value as the deemed sale consideration for calculating capital gains. The assessee's failure to comply with notices led to a best judgment assessment.
The Tribunal, relying on a similar precedent, held that the application was filed within the limitation period, specifically more than six months before the expiry of the provisional registration. It clarified that the CBDT circular extending time applied to A.Y. 2022-23 and the 'commencement of activities' limitation was irrelevant as the trust had commenced activities prior to provisional registration. Consequently, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on its merits.
The Tribunal held that Infosys Limited should be excluded from the list of comparable companies for the purpose of computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions of the assessee with its AEs. The reasoning was based on the fact that Infosys Limited incurred significant selling and marketing expenses (Rs. 2,390 Crores) and had substantial research and development expenses, indicating a different functional and risk profile compared to the assessee, which is a captive service provider catering only to its parent company. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own case for AY 2014-2015 also supported this exclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to exclude Infosys Limited from the final set of comparables. All other grounds of appeal, except for ground no. 2:15 [x] concerning the exclusion of Infosys Limited, were dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to the administrative body or authority constituted under the Endowment Act, not to the income of the temple itself. The temple may still be eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 if registered.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 48 lakhs as unexplained money for AY 2020-2021 was a double addition, as the assessee had already declared and paid taxes on this amount for AY 2019-2020, and thus deleted it. Regarding the Rs. 10 lakhs agricultural income, the Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence and rejected the argument that the belated return rendered the claim non est.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to the administrative body or authority constituted under the Endowment Act, not to the income of the temple itself. The temple may still be eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 if registered.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made the addition solely based on the demonetization notification without verifying the assessee's claim in light of the CBDT's SOP. Therefore, the matter requires fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as bank statements, to prove the VAT payments. The claim for deduction under Chapter-VIA was also unsubstantiated. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment of SCSL, which was set aside by the High Court, has a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, considering the recast books of accounts of SCSL.
The Tribunal held that the assessment of SCSL, which was set aside by the High Court, has a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, considering the recast books of accounts of SCSL.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence of employment with the two wine shops, such as appointment letters or salary slips. The Income Tax Return filed after the Section 148 notice was deemed an afterthought to circumvent additions. As the employment claim was unsubstantiated, the explanation for the cash deposits as sales proceeds of the firms was rejected, and the addition under Section 68 was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) erred by applying a CBDT circular meant for AY 2022-23 to an application for AY 2023-24 onwards. It found that the assessee's application filed on 28/09/2024 was within the limitation period (more than six months before the provisional registration expired in March 2025). The Tribunal set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's application for regular approval under Section 80G was filed within the prescribed time limit, considering the expiry of its provisional registration. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s reliance on a CBDT circular for a different assessment year was misplaced.