Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 6 of 13
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemptions) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to reconsider the application after taking into account documentary evidence supporting the assessee's claim of public charitable activity.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The ITAT relied on its co-ordinate bench's previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases, which consistently held that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies. Following the Supreme Court's decision in *Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd vs ITO*, the tribunal affirmed that interest and dividend income derived from co-operative banks by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing due to unavoidable reasons and that natural justice was denied. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file evidence and documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not fully consider the appellant's claim of consistently following the cash basis of accounting. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the returns of income for the current and subsequent years regarding the cash basis and TDS claims.
The Tribunal held that the appellant society is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, reversing the order of the CIT(A). This decision was based on the precedent set by coordinate benches following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not granted exemption under section 11 at all, despite a confusion in the tax computation sheet. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the diversion of funds to ABET, another charitable trust, did not violate Section 13(3) as it was for charitable activities. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee's consistent use of the cash system for 'Income from Other Sources' was permissible under Section 145.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing due to unavoidable reasons and that natural justice was denied. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file evidence and documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing due to unavoidable reasons and that natural justice was denied. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file evidence and documents.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and various decisions of coordinate benches. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the appellant society was held eligible for deduction.
The tribunal accepted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the Supreme Court decision in Mavilayi Services Cooperative Bank Limited, and several other coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the appellant society is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to cooperate for expeditious completion of assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of purchases and their sources, and payments were made via account payee cheques. Similar to previous proceedings for AY 2011-12, the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to a GP rate of 12.5%. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. which upheld the application of GP rate on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the appellant's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) had already been decided in its favour in previous assessment years by the ITAT and relied on Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(Exemption) and had also pursued an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the assessee as not in default of tax until the condonation petition is resolved and remitted the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refund was incorrect and the assessee is entitled to interest on unpaid refunds as per the decision in Bank of Baroda. The AO was directed to compute interest u/s 244A as per the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Rate Difference Write-off): The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the difference in rate written off was not substantiated. The assessee claimed that additional kilometers were run for safety and wear and tear, but failed to provide evidence to justify this claim or demonstrate that the principal contractor was liable for such additional costs. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established a contractual right to claim this amount from the principal contractor, and therefore, its debit to the profit and loss account as a write-off was not a genuine business loss. The addition of Rs.32,31,483/- was upheld. Issue 2 (Section 37(1) Disallowance): The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs.2,61,363/- under Section 37(1) was justified as the assessee itself had disallowed these expenses in its return of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any valid reason or justification for claiming these expenses in the first place if they were subsequently disallowed. Issue 3 (Section 43B Disallowance): The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs.5,82,761/- for Service Tax and Rs.16,08,900/- for VAT under Section 43B was justified because these amounts were not paid on or before the due dates. The assessee's claim that these were subsequently disallowed in the return of income did not absolve it from the requirement of timely payment as stipulated by Section 43B. Issue 4 & 5 (Penalty and Interest): As the additions and disallowances were upheld, the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were also upheld as consequential. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had physically examined the expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issues to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on an investigation report without independent verification or material to prove the transactions were bogus. Since the purchase of shares in an earlier year was accepted and the sale transactions were through the BSE and banking channels, they could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the department is precluded from filing appeals against orders with tax effect below the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was premature as the assessee had a bona fide reason for non-compliance and was not given adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reassessment was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required by Section 151 for assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of provision for obsolescence was based on surmise and conjecture, and it is settled law that once a debt written off as irrecoverable is recorded in the books, it need not be proved as a bad debt. Reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted, and the assessee's ground of appeal was allowed. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. Specifically, regarding the loss on sale of inventory, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that inventory includes stores and spare parts for aircraft maintenance, and the loss on sale of obsolete inventory is an allowable deduction. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that this inventory was part of fixed assets on which depreciation was claimed. Consequently, the AO was directed to allow the loss of Rs.35.35 crores.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was without jurisdiction as no incriminating material was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merits, having dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance and failure to discharge onus. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income earned by a co-operative society from investments with other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also noted divergent views from the Karnataka High Court and applied the principle that in case of ambiguity, the construction favouring the assessee should be adopted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence, including bank statements of the share applicants, which were necessary for verifying creditworthiness. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for necessary verification, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the proceedings before the lower authorities. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's option for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The liberty to recall the order was granted if the scheme applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's option for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The liberty to recall the order was granted if the scheme applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient reason for the delay, citing illness (cancer) and lack of knowledge of tax matters. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. for a liberal approach to condoning delay. The assessment order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning the section was an inadvertent or typographical error. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's applications to settle disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the settlement was not successful.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied TDS credit if tax has been deducted and the income has been offered to tax, even if it's not reflected in Form 26AS. The responsibility to recover the tax lies with the revenue from the deductor.
The Tribunal held that for computing capital gains under Section 50, the Written Down Value (WDV) as on 31.03.2003 should be used, and notional depreciation from subsequent years should not be considered. It also allowed the set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against the short-term capital gain and confirmed the tax rate applicable to long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice and that the assessee should be allowed to submit additional evidence. The CIT(A)'s decision to deny admission of evidence was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the initial allotment letter and part payment made in 2011 should be considered as the agreement date, as per the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x), given the change in property due to development regulations. The stamp duty valuation on the earlier date should be considered.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,19,00,000/- as it pertained to earlier assessment years. For the remaining Rs. 52,00,000/- (later clarified as Rs. 51,00,000/- in the Tribunal's reasoning) received in the current year, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A and obtaining a remand report from the AO. The assessee's cross-objection concerning the validity of reopening of assessment was dismissed.
The Tribunal deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the settlement under the DTVSV scheme is not finalized. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's option for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The liberty to recall the order was granted if the scheme applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit solely based on its absence in the assessee's Form 26AS was inequitable, especially since the credit was not granted to the trust either. The AO was directed to verify and allow the TDS credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal considered the tax effect of the appeal, which was found to be below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was solely based on a statement recorded during a survey, which lacks evidentiary value without corroboration. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or consider the assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal held that the object clauses allowing for expenditure outside India, as per the trust deed, were in contravention of the amended provisions of Section 12AB. Therefore, the assessee could not be granted registration under Section 80G unless these clauses were modified.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B and the ITR was directory in nature and should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had adopted a hyper-technical approach. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in ITA No. 2003/Mum/2024 for AY 2018-19 in the case of Shri Veraimata Charitable Trust, where it was held that the timeline for filing Form 10B is directory. In that case, a one-day delay was condoned. The Tribunal also considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the 3-day delay, the pandemic situation, and the fact that the audit report was available before the AO processed the assessment under section 143(1), the Tribunal found the denial of benefits under Section 11 and 12 to be unjustified and arbitrary. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the AO to grant the benefit of Form 10B filed by the assessee for extending the benefit of Section 11 and 12. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's option for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The liberty to recall the order was granted if the scheme applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's explanation for the delay and the fact that the assessment order was received much later than its date. Citing various precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal request. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal.