Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Government Securities): The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to verify the facts and allow the loss as per law, allowing Ground Nos. 1 and 2. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, which was a mistake. The AO was directed to verify facts from returns and accounts. Issue 2 (Fraudulent Withdrawal): This was clubbed with Issue 1 and allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the AO for verification. Issue 3 (NPA Provisions for Deduction): The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) as provisions were made in books. The CIT(A) denied deduction based on a belief that proof was required, which was contrary to the provisions. The matter was restored to the AO to allow the deduction as per law. Ground No. 5 was allowed for statistical purposes. Issue 4 (Employees' Contribution): The Tribunal observed that the figures supplied to the AO and CIT(A) included employer contribution. The actual employees' contribution was Rs. 28,61,534/-. The disallowance should be limited to the employees' contribution not paid before the due date. The issue was restored to the AO for verification and to sustain disallowance to that extent. Ground No. 3 was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 was dismissed as infructuous as the matter was restored to the AO. Additionally, Ground No. 6 concerning a disallowance of Rs. 6,59,216/- on account of liability in the income tax return was allowed, as it was explained to be a contra entry. Ground No. 7 regarding notional interest income was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter restored to the AO for reconsideration after inquiry with the deductor. Operative Directions: The matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on specific issues. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided by the same bench in prior cases. The Tribunal followed the principle that income for deduction under Section 80P must be operational income, not 'other income' like interest on surplus funds not immediately required for business.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A) order and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that at the time of hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative filed a letter dated 26.04.2025 expressing the assessee's desire to withdraw the appeals. The Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to the withdrawal of these appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the rejection of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5).
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from bank deposits. It found that such interest income was not attributable to the society's primary business activities and was taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. Considering the facts, particularly that the assessee has filed a return claiming taxable income and turnover, and in the absence of a finding of fact regarding the nature of deposits, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following an application by the assessee who informed that the case was being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend the proceedings despite multiple opportunities and failed to remove a defect regarding the appeal fee. Concluding that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the tribunal dismissed it as defective.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the AO's order, noting that the AO accepted the assessee's declared value but then proceeded to compute capital gains based on stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal also noted the AO's reference to the DVO and the subsequent failure to obtain a report, deeming it necessary to set aside the order.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from bank deposits. It found that such interest income was not attributable to the society's primary business activities and was taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment, directing the assessee to provide necessary evidence. Penalties levied under sections 270A and 271AAC(1) were set aside as premature.
The Tribunal noted that at the time of hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative filed a letter dated 26.04.2025 expressing the assessee's desire to withdraw the appeals. The Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stated that they had no objection to the withdrawal of these appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the rejection of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits from past savings and for meeting emergency medical expenses was reasonable and acceptable given the circumstances, including the assessee's age and medical conditions. The orders of the lower authorities were found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the commission received by the assessee was attributable to their business activities of production and marketing of sugarcane, as mandated by the U.P. Sugarcane Act and Rules. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal noted that one appeal had been fixed before another bench and the hearing was adjourned. The assessee requested to withdraw the present appeal, which was permitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which included a certificate from the State Bank of India dated 10.05.2024. This evidence was not available before the learned CIT(A) when the impugned order was passed. Considering that the learned D.R. had no objection to the admission of this evidence and that both parties agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order dated 25/03/2024. The issues in dispute were restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to pass a de novo appellate order in accordance with law. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and to take the admitted additional evidence into consideration. The Tribunal noted that the issues were not expressly left undecided, but the entire matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 2B clearly indicate that exemption for LFC is only for travel within India. The inclusion of a foreign leg in the journey, even if the destination is in India, disqualifies the exemption. The bank's claim of a bona fide belief was not accepted as a reasonable explanation for non-deduction.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 2B clearly indicate that exemption for LFC is only for travel within India. The inclusion of a foreign leg in the journey, even if the destination is in India, disqualifies the exemption. The bank's claim of a bona fide belief was not accepted as a reasonable explanation for non-deduction.
The Tribunal found that the addition was made due to the assessee's failure to establish the title of the property purportedly sold. The Tribunal, considering the facts, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and produce necessary evidence regarding the ownership of the property.
The Tribunal held that the denial of relief solely on the technical ground of Form 10E not being uploaded electronically was not justified, especially when documentary evidence like Form 16 was available. The assessee was given another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and directed a de novo decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the commission received by the assessee was attributable to their business activities of production and marketing of sugarcane, as mandated by the U.P. Sugarcane Act and Rules. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the commission and interest income were business receipts attributable to the statutory functions of the assessee societies in the production and marketing of sugarcane. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was rightly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned a 278-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the reason for delay and the lack of objection from the Sr. D.R. It restored the assessee's appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to be heard on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity, while also cautioning strict compliance with NFAC notices.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity, the ultimate decision to delete the addition was correct as the property did not belong to the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection challenging the validity of assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn and not maintainable because the assessee opted for the VSVS scheme. It was clarified that the assessee could seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under VSVS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society was registered under section 12A and should be assessed under sections 11, 12, and 13. The omission to fill a column in the return does not negate eligibility for exemption if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to medical emergencies of the assessee and her mother-in-law. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case and produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the assessee's legal heir's request to assess the income at 8% of gross receipts under section 44AD, considering the business turnover and the circumstances of non-compliance due to illness and demise.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities negated the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit without cogent evidence. The gap of three months between withdrawal and deposit of cash does not by itself lead to the conclusion that the explanation was unacceptable. The addition was deemed bad in law and liable for deletion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided ample documentary evidence for the share transactions, including purchase and sale through banking channels and demat accounts. The AO's assessment was based solely on an investigation report without independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on incorrect information and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The initial information regarding the cash deposit amount was found to be erroneous, and the subsequent addition was not supported by evidence. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the only escape route from the penalty under Section 271C is by pleading a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The assessee, State Bank of India, a leading corporate entity with ample resources, failed to provide any reasonable cause beyond a bonafide belief that tax was not deductible. The Tribunal found this explanation insufficient, especially given the availability of intellectual resources to ascertain tax obligations. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors and the Kerala High Court's decision in Muthoot Bankers, the Tribunal concluded that mens rea is not essential for penalty under Section 271C for breach of civil obligation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271C by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order. All appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source. A bonafide belief that tax was not deductible was not considered a reasonable cause for a large corporate entity like the State Bank of India. Therefore, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the explanation for delay reasonable. The Tribunal restored the case to the NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance by the assessee was not deliberate, as notices were not sent to the provided email addresses. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the only escape route from the penalty under Section 271C of the Act is pleading reasonable cause under Section 273B. The assessee, apart from stating a bonafide belief that tax was not deductible, did not provide any other cause that prevented them from TDS. The Tribunal noted that SBI is a leading corporate entity with ample intellectual resources and that failure to observe due diligence in deducting tax at source, despite easily available informed resources, cannot be accepted as a reasonable explanation. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Muthoot Bankers (Aryasala) to hold that mens rea is not an essential component for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligation. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271C by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The Tribunal found no material to persuade it to interfere with the impugned appellate orders of the CIT(A). The issue regarding the same DIN for the penalty order and demand notice was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt, but the appeals were dismissed on merits. All five appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the primary escape route from penalty under Section 271C is pleading a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The assessee, State Bank of India, a leading corporate entity with ample intellectual resources, failed to provide any reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source on reimbursements of LTC/LTA for foreign travel. A mere bonafide belief that tax was not deductible was not accepted as a reasonable explanation, especially when the assessee had access to internal and external expertise. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present any material to justify interference with the CIT(A)'s order. Citing the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors and the Kerala High Court in Muthoot Bankers, the Tribunal reiterated that mens rea is not an essential component for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligation. Consequently, the levy of penalty under Section 271C was upheld. The Tribunal also observed that in some cases, the assessee failed to remove defects in filing the appeal, but this became academic as the appeals were dismissed on merits. All appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, State Bank of India, a leading corporate entity with ample intellectual resources, could not claim a 'bonafide belief' or lack of knowledge as a reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source on foreign travel LTC/LFC reimbursements under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any other reasonable cause. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors and the Kerala High Court's reliance on it in Muthoot Bankers (Aryasala), the Tribunal affirmed that mens rea is not an essential component for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligation. The Tribunal found no material to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty under Section 271C. The issue regarding the same DIN for the penalty order and demand notice was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment, but the overall dismissal of appeals suggests it was not found to be a decisive factor. The appeals were dismissed on merits, rendering the issue of defects in filing appeals academic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in accordance with law, considering the assessee's non-compliance and lack of evidence. The additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the rental income derived from letting out property owned by the assessee should be assessed under the head 'income from house property', even if the assessee is in the business of real estate development. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the NFAC for a hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had deleted the additions made by the AO regarding interest income and prior period expenses, but remanded the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification without providing a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal followed its own precedent and restored the issue to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merit and without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after granting an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had deleted the additions made by the AO regarding interest income and prior period expenses, but remanded the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification without providing a reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal followed its own precedent and restored the issue to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax proceedings and the challenges faced in providing documentation. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that trading in derivatives, as per Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a speculative transaction and can be treated as a business loss. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) did not independently apply his mind to the assessee's arguments.