Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not properly apply its mind to the grounds of appeal and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, a request that the Ld. DR did not oppose. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) file. The tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of being heard to the assessee to ensure natural justice, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for the VSVS to settle the dispute, it was unnecessary to keep the appeal pending for adjudication. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was disposed of, with liberty granted to the revenue to revive it if the VSVS-24 outcome is not favorable.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, deeming it a procedural requirement rather than a fatal technicality. Citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption as due to the assessee, emphasizing that oversight should not prejudice genuine claims.
The Tribunal observed that income can only be treated as such if it has been received or agreed to be received. Since the assessee had already refunded the entire amount through account payee cheques, they no longer possessed the money. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, leading to dismissal for want of prosecution. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, deeming it a procedural requirement rather than a fatal technicality. Citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption as due to the assessee, emphasizing that oversight should not prejudice genuine claims.
The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the DTVSV scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal accepted the prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in passing an order on merit without considering that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, rectified the Form 26AS for both years, and was awaiting Form No. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on retracted statements without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) had examined the documentary evidence and found no incriminating material. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the case to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit all documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI due to delayed deposit, relying on Supreme Court judgments. However, for other grounds concerning disallowances of remuneration paid to directors and disallowances under Sections 194J and 194C, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication as new documents were produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the correct turnover figure was available to the AO, and the assessee's adoption of a wrong figure was an error. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for recalculating the taxable income under Section 44AD of the Act using the correct turnover figure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the stock summary was complex and required verification at the Assessing Officer's level, stating that income cannot be assessed on wrong facts. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the matter de novo after considering all evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO, as they were unable to provide documents due to unavoidable circumstances. The previous orders were passed without a full hearing.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires affording an opportunity to the assessee to place its case before the AO, especially since orders were passed behind the assessee's back. The appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with directions to provide an opportunity of being heard and consider new evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the IT Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to pay these costs would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A) order.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), granting one final opportunity. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal to the department within sixty days from the date of the order. Failure to pay this cost will result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal noted that the matter had already been remanded by a previous order of the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the current appeal by the revenue was deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), granting one final opportunity. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per appeal to the department within sixty days from the date of the order. Failure to pay this cost will result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal, while noting that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, decided to grant one more opportunity due to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). An opportunity was granted to the assessee to present his case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G for CSR contributions if the conditions are met. The Assessing Officer had made inquiries and allowed the claim, thus the PCIT's revisionary action was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders were indeed passed ex-parte and without considering the merits. It also noted that an adjournment application was overlooked. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merit, thereby satisfying the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was cryptic and based on a misunderstanding of the assessee's accounts. The CIT(A)'s detailed order, which differentiated between cost of construction and sales, was found to be reasoned and was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons. The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal reiterated the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was not a speaking order and a remand report requested by the CIT(A) had not been provided.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders were indeed passed ex-parte and without considering the merits. It also noted that an adjournment application was overlooked. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merit, thereby satisfying the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders were indeed passed ex-parte and without considering the merits. It also noted that an adjournment application was overlooked. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merit, thereby satisfying the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided all necessary evidence regarding share subscriptions and that the lower authorities had failed to conduct a proper inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year in question was unabated on the date of the search, and the time limit to issue a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to the share capital/premium collected by the assessee. The AO's addition was based solely on the information contained in the assessee's balance sheet and the incomplete replies from subscribers. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to make additions in an unabated assessment without supporting seized incriminating material. The CIT(A) had rightly appreciated this factual matrix and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The issue of whether the addition was validly made under Section 68 in an unabated assessment without incriminating material was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments for land purchases were covered by the exceptions in Rule 6DD, as they were made due to practical difficulties and commercial expediency, and the genuineness of transactions was established. The Tribunal also found that the cash deposits during demonetization were against prior advances for land purchases and were duly recorded.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G for CSR contributions if the conditions are met. The Assessing Officer had made inquiries and allowed the claim, thus the PCIT's revisionary action was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing PAN details, bank statements, audited financials, and IT acknowledgments for the share applicants. The AO failed to disprove the materials placed before him, making the addition based on conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions. The AO had not commented on these evidences and had not issued notices under Section 133(6).
The Tribunal held that the cash payments for land purchases were covered by the exceptions in Rule 6DD, as they were made due to practical difficulties and commercial expediency, and the genuineness of transactions was established. The Tribunal also found that the cash deposits during demonetization were against prior advances for land purchases and were duly recorded.
The Tribunal held that the return filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) is valid. It also considered the belated filing of Form 10 as a procedural lapse, relying on judicial precedents that substantial compliance is sufficient and exemptions should not be denied on technicalities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons. The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague, scanty, and ambiguous, lacking specific details such as the source and timing of the funds received. The AO had merely extracted the investigation wing's report and noted a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment without demonstrating independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the AO had acted on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment. As the appeal was allowed on this legal ground, other grounds raised by the assessee on merits were not adjudicated and were left open for future consideration if needed. The ratio decidendi is that reopening under Section 147 requires the AO to record specific reasons and demonstrate independent application of mind, not merely rely on information from other agencies without substantiation.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the necessary Form No. 4 had been issued by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of cash transfers (hawala transactions) from one place to another in lieu of commission, as admitted by the assessee during the recording of his statement under Section 132(4). The Tribunal noted that the cash transactions, in the form of receipts and payments, could not be treated as money belonging to the assessee, even though the parties involved could not be identified due to the nature of hawala dealings. The Tribunal found that the assessee's job was to transfer cash from one place to another on a commission basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in partly allowing the appeal by applying the commission rate of 0.15% on the cash transactions and deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 69A. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The addition of ₹25,32,94,167 was deleted, and the commission income declared by the assessee of ₹4,69,103 was accepted. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with specific directions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the society is required to comply with the Co-operative Act and keep funds with banks and government securities. It observed that the assessee's total investments amounted to ₹20.22 crores, which, according to the Tribunal, were made out of surplus funds as per Section 64 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, and thus should be treated as income from business activities. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in M/s Bishpur Rowtara Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The AO was directed to treat interest from savings accounts in terms of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. South Eastern Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. If interest income on investments with nationalized banks is treated as income from other sources, the AO should determine corresponding expenses and allow deductions as per the decision in M/s Panditpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. ITO. Interest from investments made as per Section 65 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, is to be treated as business income, following the decision in Rabindra Bharati University Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The appeal for AY 2020-21 was decided mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of cash transfers (hawala transactions) from one place to another in lieu of commission, as admitted by the assessee during the recording of his statement under Section 132(4). The Tribunal noted that the cash transactions, in the form of receipts and payments, could not be treated as money belonging to the assessee, even though the parties involved could not be identified due to the nature of hawala dealings. The Tribunal found that the assessee's job was to transfer cash from one place to another on a commission basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in partly allowing the appeal by applying the commission rate of 0.15% on the cash transactions and deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 69A. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The addition of ₹25,32,94,167 was deleted, and the commission income declared by the assessee of ₹4,69,103 was accepted. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year in question was unabated on the date of the search, and the time limit to issue a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Crucially, no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to the share capital/premium collected by the assessee. The AO's addition was based solely on the information contained in the assessee's balance sheet and the incomplete replies from subscribers. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to make additions in an unabated assessment without supporting seized incriminating material. The CIT(A) had rightly appreciated this factual matrix and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The issue of whether the addition was validly made under Section 68 in an unabated assessment without incriminating material was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no capital gain arose in the current assessment year (AY 2013-14). The Tribunal noted that while a joint development agreement was entered into, no money was received under it, and it was never performed or executed. The land was sold by both co-owners on 28.08.2017, and the capital gain arose in AY 2018-19, for which tax was paid. The Tribunal observed that in the case of the other co-owner, Guramrit Singh Gill, the same plea was accepted by the AO in reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14, and no addition was made. The reasoning provided in the co-owner's case indicated that the initial agreement did not involve a sale, no cash or kind was received, and the actual sale took place in AY 2018-19. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion. The addition was directed to be deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.