Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of awareness. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for being lethargic.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. The Tribunal found deep and pervasive State control, a monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions, and the potential transfer of a government department to the assessee as strong factors supporting this inference. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were found to be irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the principles derived from Supreme Court judgments regarding the taxability of income of instrumentalities of the State and the application of Article 289(1).
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee for the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was credible and should be accepted. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on the existence of deep and pervasive State control, the assessee's monopoly status which is State-conferred or State-protected, and the performance of public importance functions closely related to governmental functions. The Tribunal found that Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. Consequently, the assessee's income was found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The Tribunal allowed all appeals filed by the assessee and dismissed all appeals filed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a "State" within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. The Tribunal found that there was deep and pervasive State control, the assessee enjoyed a State-conferred monopoly status, and its functions were of public importance closely related to governmental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were found to be irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that an entity fulfilling the criteria of being an instrumentality of the State under Article 289(1) of the Constitution is exempt from income tax, irrespective of the nature of its activities or the specific provisions of Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) if the constitutional exemption is more fundamental.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a "State" within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on factors such as deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, the public importance of its functions, and their close relation to governmental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Tribunal found Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act to be irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee for the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was credible and should be accepted. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside.
The ITAT held that the Urban Improvement Trust is an instrumentality of the State and falls under the purview of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147/148, as the information originated from a search of another assessee. Furthermore, the addition was deleted due to the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee and the failure to provide legible copies of the relied-upon documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. The Tribunal found that there was deep and pervasive State control, the assessee enjoyed a monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, and its functions were of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. It also noted that if a government department is transferred to such an entity, it supports the inference of it being an instrumentality of the government. Consequently, the income derived by the assessee is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act to be irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. Therefore, all additions made by the Assessing Officer were directed to be deleted, irrespective of the head of income. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on the existence of deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, public importance of its functions, and their close relation to governmental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee fulfills the requirements of Article 12 and 289 of the Constitution. The Tribunal explicitly stated that Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The core decision was that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and all appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a "State" within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on the existence of deep and pervasive State control, the assessee's monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected, and its functions being of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's income was held to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all, and the Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The specific expenditures and deductions challenged by the revenue were implicitly allowed as part of the overall exemption granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the Additional/JCIT(A)-4 Mumbai lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it was an issue concerning the directions of the High Court and the administrative/assessment division of the department. Therefore, the orders of the lower authority were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus under Section 68 of the Act by providing evidence of the sale of shares. The assessee demonstrated the identity of the buyers, their capacity to advance money (through their financial statements and MCA compliance), and the genuineness of the transaction by providing sale invoices and payment through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the shares were sold at face value, and the transaction was reflected in the assessee's regular books. The Tribunal also observed that the basis for reopening the case was based on suspicion and disregard for the facts submitted by the assessee, particularly the sale of shares. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s detailed findings and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. The addition made by the AO was deleted, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Rajasthan High Court had quashed Section 148 notices in connected cases where incriminating material was seized during a search, directing the department to proceed under Section 153C. Consequently, the Department issued fresh notices to the assessee under Section 153C read with Section 153A. This rendered the original reassessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order non-existent. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the Additional/JCIT(A)-4 Mumbai lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it was an issue concerning the directions of the High Court and the administrative/assessment division of the department. Therefore, the orders of the lower authority were confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the Rajasthan High Court had quashed Section 148 notices in connected cases where incriminating material was seized during a search, directing the department to proceed under Section 153C. Consequently, the Department issued fresh notices to the assessee under Section 153C read with Section 153A. This rendered the original reassessment order and the CIT(A)'s appellate order non-existent. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not mandatory for obtaining registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the genuineness of activities, the Tribunal found that documents submitted by the assessee were not available to the CIT(E) and thus restored the matter for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the Additional/JCIT(A)-4 Mumbai lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it was an issue concerning the directions of the High Court and the administrative/assessment division of the department. Therefore, the orders of the lower authority were confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cross-objection was delayed by 2 days, but the delay was condoned. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions cited by the assessee, quashed the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders. The reasoning was based on the principle that if incriminating material is seized from a third party, proceedings under Section 153C are to be resorted to. The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional conditions for invoking Section 147-148 were not satisfied, as there was no failure to disclose material facts fully and truly by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on decisions that held that specific provisions like Section 153C would prevail over general provisions like Section 147 in cases of search on a third party. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the first ground of challenge to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was accepted, and there was no need to dilate upon other grounds. The respondents (assessee) were at liberty to proceed against the petitioners (Revenue) in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not illegal. However, it found that the addition of Rs. 7,45,60,400/- made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court's decision in Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India, which held that loose sheets of papers are irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal noted that the impounded papers were not maintained in the regular course of business and thus lacked evidentiary value. The AO's action of taxing jotting of advance taken/given based on a loose sheet, which was not considered a regular book of account, and taxing the peak of loan transactions without proving the assessee's involvement in business or acting on behalf of a company, was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address the validity of the assessment order's selection for compulsory scrutiny or the charging of interest/penalty, focusing solely on the merits of the addition. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search, especially for completed assessments. Since no such material was found, the additions were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague, not specifying whether the charge was for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the penalty order was found to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty was imposed for concealment when the assessment order mentioned inaccurate particulars, and deleted the penalty on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte for non-prosecution, despite several notices. However, acknowledging the assessee's plea for one more opportunity to contest the case, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A)'s file.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption due to a procedural defect (incorrect ITR form selection) and the linkage of exemption to Section 12AA registration were erroneous. The assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was to be examined afresh by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's contention that confusion arose due to two penalty orders being served simultaneously. The Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person, without proper intimation and opportunity to the legal heir, is void ab initio. The Tribunal concurred with the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in a similar case, stating that the entire assessment proceedings become a nullity in such circumstances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to contest the case and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal decided to provide one more chance to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the protective addition made by the AO for cash deposits was not sustainable as the cash deposited was not demonetized currency and was explained by withdrawals. The Tribunal also noted that no addition was made for similar deposits in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-supply of material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, especially since it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on technical grounds. It held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 was bad in law because the material that formed the basis for the reopening was discovered during a search action. In such cases, where incriminating material is found during a search, the assessment proceedings should be initiated under section 153A or 153C of the Act, not under section 147/148. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Sejal Jewellery vs Union of India and the Rajasthan High Court in Tirupati Construction Company Vs. ITO, which clearly state that section 147/148 is not the appropriate recourse when the assessment is based on search materials. The Tribunal noted that the AO had found incriminating material, and therefore, the proper course of action was to issue a notice under section 153A. Since this was not done, the notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment were quashed. Consequently, the grounds relating to the merits of the addition (grounds 2, 2.1, and 3) became academic and were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was bad in law due to a vague penalty notice. The notice failed to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the penalty order was imposed for 'concealment of income' while the assessment order indicated 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income', which is impermissible as per various decisions. The Tribunal also found that the penalty order passed on 29.03.2019 was barred by limitation, as the six-month period from the receipt of the ITAT's order (31.10.2018) had expired. On merits, the Tribunal deleted the penalty on the disallowance of CSR expenses, holding that the claim was bonafide and all facts were on record, thus not amounting to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. Similarly, for the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment. Therefore, the penalty on this disallowance was also not leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was indeed ex-parte before the lower authorities and did not get an adequate opportunity to present its case. While acknowledging the assessee's responsibility to appear, the Tribunal considered it in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity.