Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 35DD is a specific provision for demerger expenses and its deduction should be allowed as a continuing claim. As no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under appeal, Section 14A for disallowing expenses related to exempt income was not applicable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that an identical issue in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years (AY 2013-14 & 2014-15) was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following that order and with agreement from both parties, the Tribunal remanded the current issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify the availability of the assessee's own interest-free funds for making advances, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in South Indian Bank Ltd v. CIT.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that since the original revision orders under Section 263, which formed the basis for the fresh assessment orders, had already been quashed by a consolidated ITAT order dated 13.01.2021, the consequential fresh assessment orders passed by the AO under Section 263 read with Section 143(3) became infructuous. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the present appeals and quashed the impugned fresh assessment orders.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to submit all evidence. It remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application for registration under Section 12AB afresh, after allowing the assessee to submit the necessary documentary evidence and proceed as per law.
The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, citing Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. The ITAT also held that the CIT(A) orders, which merely confirmed the AO's orders without complying with the requirements of Section 250(6) regarding stating points for determination, decision, and reasons, were not proper. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper hearing and the assessee to ensure participation.
The Tribunal found that Section 271AAC(1) provides discretion to the AO for penalty initiation, meaning it is not mandatory. Citing a similar ITAT decision and the Supreme Court's view on 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue', the Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous and quashed the PCIT's revision order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the nature of the impugned receipts had not been adequately examined at the assessment level. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to present detailed submissions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was incorrect in initiating revisionary action. The AO had made inquiries and verified the issue, and the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the addition made by the AO treating cash withdrawals as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C was questionable and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to fully cooperate and furnish all necessary documents and explanations regarding the cash deposits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024' and completed the necessary formalities, including receiving and accepting Form No. 2. With no objection from the revenue's representative, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn, while clarifying that the assessee retains the right to recall the order if the scheme application is rejected by the revenue.
The Tribunal consolidated the appeals for common adjudication. The core issue revolves around the validity of assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that since the original revision orders under Section 263, which formed the basis for the fresh assessment orders, had already been quashed by a consolidated ITAT order dated 13.01.2021, the consequential fresh assessment orders passed by the AO under Section 263 read with Section 143(3) became infructuous. Therefore, the ITAT allowed the present appeals and quashed the impugned fresh assessment orders.
The Tribunal, relying on High Court and ITAT precedents, held that the belated filing of Form 10 is a procedural omission and not a substantive defect, as long as the form is available with the Assessing Officer during assessment. Since Form 10 was filed before the assessment date, the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) should not be denied. The matter was remanded to the AO to allow the benefit of accumulation.
The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, citing Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. The ITAT also held that the CIT(A) orders, which merely confirmed the AO's orders without complying with the requirements of Section 250(6) regarding stating points for determination, decision, and reasons, were not proper. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper hearing and the assessee to ensure participation.
The Tribunal considered the fresh documentary evidence (the trust registration certificate) and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) for fresh consideration of the application under Section 12AB based on the newly produced evidence.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both the assessee and the revenue, and in the interest of natural justice and fair play, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for proper verification and adjudication on merit. The Tribunal emphasized that this remand is at the risk and responsibility of the assessee. The JAO is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by any previous order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the JAO and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to comply may result in the JAO passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the assessee's prayer to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer, directing the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to submit Form No. 26A to claim the benefit of the 2nd Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) read with the 1st Proviso to Section 201(1) and then pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal noted that while it agreed in principle with a similar case where exemption was allowed for the pre-absorption period, the assessee in this case failed to provide sufficient supporting documents from BSNL. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable for AY 2013-14 as the assessee had no tax-exempt income, noting the prospective application of the Finance Act 2022 Explanation. Regarding the carry forward of losses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the deduction under Section 10A should be allowed before the set-off/carry forward of losses, following Supreme Court's pronouncements.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's opening cash balance of Rs. 19,51,281.08 could not fully explain the entire deposit of Rs. 21,45,000/-, a portion of this balance, amounting to Rs. 19,51,000/-, could be considered as a source for the deposits. Therefore, only the remaining difference of Rs. 1,94,000/- was treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal observed that the revenue authorities failed to produce the mandatory approval under Section 151, stating the approval letter was 'not available/traceable'. Relying on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the Tribunal held that without the Section 151 approval, the Section 148 notice and subsequent assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 were invalid, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The tribunal further clarified that the assessee is free to file a recall application if their Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected by the revenue.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without proper opportunities to the assessee. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee, concerning the AO exceeding the scope of limited scrutiny without PCIT approval, was purely legal and admitted for decision. The Tribunal noted that the limited scrutiny was initiated to examine specific issues, including whether the 'value of consideration' for capital gains was correctly shown. The AO accepted the 'value of consideration' declared by the assessee but varied/denied the claims for costs and exemptions. The Tribunal found that examining 'value of consideration' was distinct from examining the entire 'computation of capital gain' which includes costs and exemptions. Therefore, by varying/denying costs and exemptions, the AO travelled beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. Following the decision in Urban Improvement Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO concerning the computation of capital gains, which went beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and lacked prior approval from the PCIT, was liable to be quashed. The addition made by the AO was ordered to be deleted, and the AO was directed to accept the capital gain declared by the assessee in the return of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the original return voluntarily. Subsequently, in response to the section 148 notice, the assessee cited technical difficulties in filing the return on time and requested that the original return be treated as filed in response to the notice. A return was later filed on 10.03.2022, followed by a notice under section 143(2). However, the AO proposed assessment under section 144 and issued a draft assessment order. The assessee objected to the draft order and requested more time, which the AO denied due to the assessment becoming time-barred by 31.03.2022. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not able to make sufficient filings or representations before the AO, especially against the draft assessment order. The Tribunal also acknowledged the various legal and factual infirmities raised by the assessee regarding the reopening and the assessment. Considering the entire conspectus, including the assessee's inability to make adequate submissions and the legal challenges, the bench proposed to remand the matter to the AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. Both parties agreed to this proposal. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide necessary opportunities, supply required material judiciously, consider all submissions, and pass a fresh order without being influenced by the previous one. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully. The issue of interest under sections 234A and 234B was not expressly decided on merits but would be considered in the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and the principles of natural justice and fair play, deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) for fresh adjudication. The JAO is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the JAO and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. Failure to do so will empower the JAO to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), noting that various appellate forums, including the Indore bench of ITAT, have consistently held that co-operative banks qualify as 'co-operative societies' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, even if engaged in banking business. Consequently, the ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), noting that various appellate forums, including the Indore bench of ITAT, have consistently held that co-operative banks qualify as 'co-operative societies' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, even if engaged in banking business. Consequently, the ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), noting that various appellate forums, including the Indore bench of ITAT, have consistently held that co-operative banks qualify as 'co-operative societies' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, even if engaged in banking business. Consequently, the ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that this is a recurring issue in the assessee's own cases, and the ITAT has consistently held that such subsidies are capital receipts. Therefore, following its previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders.
The tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee including deaths of key personnel and management change during the COVID period. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the registration application, with a direction for the assessee to provide all necessary documents and be afforded a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that as per the scheme's rules, the assessee is required to withdraw the appeal and file Form 3. Since the assessee is no longer pursuing the appeal and has requested its withdrawal, and the departmental representative did not object, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), noting that various appellate forums, including the Indore bench of ITAT, have consistently held that co-operative banks qualify as 'co-operative societies' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, even if engaged in banking business. Consequently, the ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that this is a recurring issue in the assessee's own cases, and the ITAT has consistently held that such subsidies are capital receipts. Therefore, following its previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal, applying the principle of natural justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. It directed the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments, failing which the CIT(E) is at liberty to pass an appropriate order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice and fair play. The assessee is directed to actively participate in hearings and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The ITAT found 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the first appeal, noting the assessee's illness and mental distress resulting from the Corona Pandemic's impact on business. Applying the principle of substantial justice as per *Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji*, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-representation. The AO had also passed an ex-parte assessment order. Considering the submissions, the principle of natural justice, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the AO and avoid unnecessary adjournments. Failing this, the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the Revenue's lack of objection. It found that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A) and therefore remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing and adjudication on the grounds raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Noting that the assessee was unrepresented before the lower authorities and had not been given a proper opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to furnish explanations and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of hearing notices to the assessee's registered email or post, and merely uploading to the departmental portal was insufficient per Section 282 and judicial precedents. Citing the obligation of the appellate authority to decide appeals on merits, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional due to the assessee's non-receipt of notices. It held that the CIT(A) failed to issue and serve proper notice of hearing, rendering the ex-parte dismissal invalid. Citing a High Court precedent on proper service, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that a fair opportunity be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for the disallowance of additional depreciation was not justified as an identical claim was allowed in the preceding assessment year. However, the penalty for the disallowance of income-tax expenditure was upheld, as it was clearly disallowable under Section 40(a)(ii) and constituted furnishing of inaccurate particulars, despite the claim of inadvertence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the impugned deposits with documentary evidence, including cash withdrawals and business trends. Furthermore, it was held that the AO could not make an addition under Section 68 after rejecting the assessee's books of account under Section 145.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance with the AO's notices led to the estimation of income. However, considering the assessee's grievance regarding the opportunity for hearing and the revenue's alternative prayer, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's request for another opportunity, remanding both the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and make proper submissions to the CIT(A) without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a fresh order unbiased by the previous one.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the medical emergency as sufficient cause under Section 253(5) of the Act. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide complete submissions to all queries.