Loading ITAT cases…
744 orders · Page 3 of 15
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT to adjudicate an appeal lies within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in ABC Papers Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view based on the law and DTAA provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were conducted through the stock exchange via registered brokers and routed through banking channels. The Tribunal found no perversity in the assessee's documentation and deleted the additions.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in rejecting the condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted the significant delays but considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected ordinary persons and professions across the country from March 2020 to March 2022. It was held that a liberal approach was required, and the exemption granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 regarding condonation of delay due to the pandemic should be extended. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. and other cited decisions, emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that refusing to condone delay can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delays of 1340, 739, and 438 days for the respective assessment years. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with the direction that the assessee present its case within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had ignored the assessee's request to adjust the seized cash against the tax liability, including interest, from the date of the request. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the interest calculation to the date the assessee owned up the cash was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). The assessee had sought an adjournment which was not considered, and the appeal was disposed of ex-parte. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues have been consistently held in favor of the assessee by co-ordinate benches, stating that hardship allowance received from a builder in re-development agreements is a capital receipt. The Tribunal followed these precedents and held that the hardship allowance is a capital receipt and not taxable as income.
The Tribunal held that error trade losses are incidental to the business and therefore allowable, directing the deletion of the disallowance. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed to restrict it to the extent of exempt income claimed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to justify the delay. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the delay and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen and faced difficulties in complying with the proceedings due to age, health, and the shift to a faceless appellate system, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the Income Tax Act primarily requires the investment of capital gains for the purchase or construction of a new residential house within the stipulated period. The completion of construction or taking possession within three years is not a strict pre-condition for claiming the deduction. The intention of the legislature is to encourage the acquisition of residential property.
The Tribunal found that the submissions filed by the appellant were not considered by the CIT(A). Given this oversight, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after considering the submitted documents. The appellant was also directed to file electronic copies of their submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and without addressing the request for a video conference hearing. Section 250(6) of the Act requires the CIT(A) to determine the points of dispute and record reasons. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner proceeded with the case without considering the Appellant's adjournment application, which was filed before the compliance date. This led to the rejection of the application without proper consideration, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, following its own precedents and the CIT(A)'s decision that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable, especially when the revenue has not disputed the sales or the banking channel payments for purchases.
The Commissioner found that there were no fresh loans in the impugned assessment year and that the addition was due to an inadvertent typographical error, supported by affidavits from the CA and the company director. The Tribunal found no reason to contradict this finding.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, following its own precedents and the CIT(A)'s decision that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable, especially when the revenue has not disputed the sales or the banking channel payments for purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case under Section 147 was in accordance with the law. The AO's application of a GP rate of 25% on the non-genuine purchases was considered reasonable. However, the AO was directed to examine the assessee's claim that the material was used in execution and that the gross profit was already declared at 21.68%, and to reduce the addition accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in rejecting the condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted the significant delays but considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected ordinary persons and professions across the country from March 2020 to March 2022. It was held that a liberal approach was required, and the exemption granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 regarding condonation of delay due to the pandemic should be extended. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. and other cited decisions, emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that refusing to condone delay can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delays of 1340, 739, and 438 days for the respective assessment years. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with the direction that the assessee present its case within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debts is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if the debt is written off in the books of accounts, subject to the conditions in Section 36(2). The requirement to take the debt into account for computing income in the current or earlier years was met. Confirmation letters were not necessary for the disallowance to be made.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals on the grounds that their registration was restored by the CIT(E). The tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice in different assessment years. The assessee had already offered the amount as income in AY 2021-22, which was accepted. The AO's reasoning for treating the write-back as an afterthought was not convincing, especially since the audited accounts for AY 2021-22 were finalized before the reopening notice.
The Tribunal held that nominal members, admitted as per the society's bye-laws and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, are indeed members. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80P based on transactions with these nominal members was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society complied with the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, by admitting nominal members as per its bye-laws and that loans to depositors were permissible. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bye-laws and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, permit the admission of nominal members and loans to depositors, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal observed that another appeal on the same issue was pending. In light of the assessee's request and the pending appeal, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the present appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that merely classifying an expenditure as revenue or capital does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when the genuineness of the expense is not disputed and all details were provided. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bye-laws, allowing nominal members and loans to depositors on the security of their deposits, were in conformity with the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to apply their mind and proceeded based on an incorrect understanding of facts, with no link between tangible material and the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, following its own precedents and the CIT(A)'s decision that penalty on estimated additions is not sustainable, especially when the revenue has not disputed the sales or the banking channel payments for purchases.
The Tribunal held that MAT credit should be allowed inclusive of surcharge and cess, following jurisdictional precedents. The AO was directed to recompute the tax payable accordingly.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals on the grounds that their registration was restored by the CIT(E). The tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in rejecting the condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted the significant delays but considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected ordinary persons and professions across the country from March 2020 to March 2022. It was held that a liberal approach was required, and the exemption granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 regarding condonation of delay due to the pandemic should be extended. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. and other cited decisions, emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that refusing to condone delay can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delays of 1340, 739, and 438 days for the respective assessment years. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with the direction that the assessee present its case within 90 days of the order.
The tribunal noted that the instant appeal was a duplicate of another appeal, ITA No. 2586/M/2024, which was filed online and adjourned to a future date. Therefore, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid due to tangible material received. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and did not respond to notices. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to determine the addition based on the profit element of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that for penalty to be levied under Section 270A for misreporting, there must first be under-reporting of income as defined in Section 270A(2). The assessee's case did not fall under any of the clauses of Section 270A(2), thus there was no under-reporting of income, and consequently, no misreporting.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had accepted a turnover of ₹14,19,911/- as business income, implying acceptance of the assessee's business activity. It was found that the cash deposit was not necessarily an unexplained cash credit but could be considered business income, especially since the assessee claimed it was from sales. The Tribunal directed the AO to tax the income from the cash deposited at the rate of 8.65%, as offered by the assessee himself, and to delete the remaining addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and provide necessary evidence to substantiate the claimed agricultural income. However, considering the disproportionate increase in agricultural income compared to the previous year and the lack of documentation, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to direct the AO to provide credit for taxes paid under the VsVs Scheme after verification. The additions made by the AO were for amounts already settled under the VsVs Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the revision order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the revision order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition of cash deposits made by the AO was erroneous as the transactions/sources were not adequately supported by documentary evidence. The CIT(A) had erred in confirming the addition by rejecting additional evidence without proper investigation.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is attracted only to cooperative banks holding a banking license from the RBI, which was not the case here. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the revision order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 80P(4) was unsustainable, citing the Supreme Court's *Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.* judgment, which clarifies that Section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative societies holding a banking license from RBI. Since the appellant did not hold such a license, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income from credit facilities and under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest from co-operative banks. Furthermore, any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not result in additional tax liability as the enhanced income would also be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal noted that many notices were issued during the Covid period and granted the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(A). The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the PCIT's order, ruling that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 was invalid. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and the assessee had already suo moto disallowed the disputed expenditure (including penalties and fines) in its income computation. Citing the Supreme Court's Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, as required for a valid revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal noted that Form 10B was filed and the utilization of funds was explained. However, the appeal before the CIT(A) was ex-parte, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the appeal order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the assessee's return, especially since the difference between stamp duty value and actual consideration (8.14%) was within the 10% tolerance limit. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT did not provide sufficient material to justify the revision and that the tolerance limit introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, was applied retrospectively by coordinate benches.