Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 3 of 15
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income from house property is bad in law and quashed it for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the properties were shown in the balance sheet, unlike the former case where a significantly higher Annual Letting Value was determined based on lease agreements and interest-free deposits. The Tribunal followed the decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty cannot be levied on notional income. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio because Section 271AAB was applicable due to the search date (04.02.2016) and the non-obstante clause in Section 271AAB excludes the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to the specified previous year. The Tribunal quashed the penalty for AY 2016-17. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to recall the order if circumstances warrant. The grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee's activities fall under the nature of trade, commerce, or business needs to be examined in light of Supreme Court judgments. It also noted that the principle of mutuality might not apply to revenues from non-members.
The Tribunal condoned the 137-day delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the Assessee to cooperate and be vigilant in proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an opportunity to respond to the last notice issued by the CIT(E) on the issues raised therein. In the interest of justice, the issue deserved to be remanded to the CIT(E) to consider the claim in light of the submissions made by both sides and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that a proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessee's application for registration but rather on the procedural aspect of providing an opportunity to be heard. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee fails to respond to a notice due to inadvertence, and the opportunity to be heard is crucial for natural justice, the matter should be remanded to the lower authority to provide such an opportunity, especially when the application is at the stage of grant of registration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income from house property is bad in law and quashed it for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue, noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the addition was purely notional. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment cannot be levied on notional income. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio, deserving to be quashed. This was because Section 271AAB, with its non-obstante clause, was applicable to searches initiated on or after July 1, 2012, and the search in this case occurred on 04.02.2016. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that there was no undisclosed income declared by the assessee as contemplated under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to quash the penalties.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the ground of appeal concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this specific issue.
The Tribunal noted that lower authorities failed to consider CBDT Circular No. 3/2017, which allowed acceptance of cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- during demonetization without explanation or documentary evidence. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief up to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the non-receipt of the intimation and was explained by sufficient cause, supported by documentary evidence. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal based on a presumption of service without cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income from house property is bad in law and quashed. The reasoning was that the AO himself observed the addition to be notional, and in reality, no income was earned from the house property. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, stating that in that case, the assessee had declared a low rental income despite receiving a substantial interest-free deposit, leading to a determination of a much higher Annual Letting Value (ALV). In the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the properties were shown in the balance sheet. The Tribunal also followed decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment cannot be levied on notional income. Consequently, penalties for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were quashed. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio. This was because the search was conducted on 04.02.2016, and Section 271AAB, which starts with a non-obstante clause and excludes the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to a specified previous year, was applicable. The Tribunal noted that Section 271AAB(1) applies to searches initiated on or after July 1, 2012, and AY 2016-17 fell under the definition of 'specified previous year' as the search was conducted in that year. Therefore, the penalty was quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of penalties for all AYs.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A)'s decision appeared to be made without proper inquiry. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to recall if circumstances warranted. Consequently, the grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside both impugned orders, directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications for Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval afresh. The Assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit all necessary documents and explanations, including those related to the trust's objectives.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the circumstances surrounding the two PANs and the income reported. The AO had accepted the returned income during reassessment, indicating no concealment. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A of the Act were not based on any incriminating material found as a result of the search and seizure operation. The balance sheet entries and third-party statements did not constitute such material.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied. It found that the appellant's mistake in revising the return was bonafide, as he relied on the TDS Traces portal and his tax representative's advice. Full taxes were paid on the additional income.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A of the Act were not based on any incriminating material found as a result of the search and seizure operation. The balance sheet entries and third-party statements did not constitute such material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because the notice u/s.148 was issued beyond three years without proper sanction from the specified authority as per amended Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies, and interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). This decision is based on a series of consistent rulings by the Tribunal's benches.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus making the notice vague. This defect is fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, making the notice vague. This defect is fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that there were duplicate entries in the ITS statement leading to discrepancies in salary and professional receipts. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation after verifying and excluding the duplicate entries.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the assessee's explanation, noting the intention to settle the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee's claims against the previous CA were unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the penalty initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. It reasoned that the offence of concealment involves an attempt to hide income. In this case, the assessee had furnished all details and offered the rental income that was actually received. The addition was on account of notional rent for properties that remained vacant, for which the assessee had claimed vacancy allowance. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. A mere claim that is unsustainable in law, by itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal noted that the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return were not found to be inaccurate. Therefore, the penalty was quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee for all assessment years were allowed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the issues of Section 275 violation or natural justice violations separately, as the primary ground regarding the sustainability of the penalty itself was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as a condition for remand.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as a condition for remand.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court in that case held that a mere making of a claim which is unsustainable in law cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and such a claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the assessee had offered rental income that was received from properties that were rented out, and claimed vacancy allowance for properties that remained vacant. The penalty was levied on notional rent computed in respect of vacant properties. The Tribunal found that no fault had been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. Therefore, the penalty initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment was quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee for all assessment years under consideration were allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as a condition for remand.
The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petoproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income. All details were furnished, and it was within the knowledge of the authorities that rent was not received from some properties either entirely or partially. The assessee had claimed vacancy allowance for periods when properties remained vacant, which was not allowed by the AO, leading to ALV computation based on past rent received. The penalty was levied on this notional rent. The Supreme Court in Reliance Petoproducts held that a mere making of a claim which is unsustainable in law cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and as such will not attract penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Court further observed that if the assessee furnished all details of its expenditure and income in its return, which were not found to be inaccurate, and the claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty. The Tribunal concluded that in the present facts, for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, the penalty initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for all assessment years under consideration were allowed. The operative direction was to quash the penalty.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as a condition for remand.
The Tribunal considered the appeal as a duplicate of ITA No.488/M/2025. Since the Ld. D.R. did not refute the Assessee's claim and the appeal was a duplicate concerning the same assessment year and order, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable explanation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies, and the interest or dividend income earned from them is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The decisions relied upon by the AO were found not applicable to the present case.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to re-decide the Assessee's appeal, specifically considering the Assessing Officer's Section 68 addition, and grant the Assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the amount spent on medical assistance, as per the donor's direction, should have been reduced from the expenditure eligible for application, not added to the total income. Therefore, the assessee's computation of total income as nil was correct.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which held that a mere making of a claim which is unsustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the assessee had offered the rental income that was received from properties that were rented out and had claimed vacancy allowance for properties that remained vacant. The penalty was levied on notional rent computed in respect of vacant properties. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and had furnished all details. The addition was on account of notional rent, and the assessee's claim for vacancy allowance was not allowed by the AO. Therefore, following the ratio of the Supreme Court, the penalty was quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee for all assessment years were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and liable to be quashed for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The reasoning was that the assessee had offered rental income received from properties and claimed vacancy allowance for periods where properties remained vacant. The AO's addition was on account of notional rent computed in respect of vacant properties, and the penalty was levied on this notional rent. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all details and did not conceal any particulars of income. A mere claim that is unsustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that no fault was found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. The grounds raised by the assessee for all assessment years under consideration were allowed. The operative direction was to quash the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income is bad in law and liable to be quashed for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had offered the rental income that was received from properties that were rented out. The addition was made on account of notional rent computed in respect of properties that remained vacant, and the assessee had claimed vacancy allowance. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income and had furnished all details. The mere making of a claim which is unsustainable in law, such as the claim for vacancy allowance which was disallowed, does not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal noted that no fault was found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The judgment does not explicitly address the arguments regarding Section 275 and violation of natural justice as a separate finding, but the allowance of the grounds related to Section 271(1)(c) implicitly resolves the matter.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as a condition for remand.
The Tribunal held that all the receipts in question were derived from the business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It was also held that interest received on FDRs from cooperative banks is allowable under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is earned in the course of the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because the notice u/s.148 was issued beyond three years without proper sanction from the specified authority as per amended Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to insurance companies, as their profits are computed under Section 44, which has an overriding effect. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 148A and Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority under the new regime.