Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 4 of 15
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 held that the indexation benefit should be allowed from the date of the allotment letter as it signifies the date of acquisition of ownership rights. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant the set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against capital gains.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Assessee had filed an application under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for settlement.
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 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 since the Section 12A registration was restored, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11. The contributions received as corpus are capital receipts and not taxable income.
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 cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and that interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). This decision was based on a series of previous judgments by the Tribunal.
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 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 was bad in law and liable to be quashed for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The reasoning was that the assessee had furnished all details of its income and expenditure in its return, and these details were not found to be inaccurate. The addition was made on account of notional rent on vacant properties, and the assessee had claimed vacancy allowance, which was disallowed by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that a mere making of a claim which is unsustainable in law, by itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty was levied on notional rent computed in respect of vacant property, while the assessee had offered rental income received from rented-out properties. The Tribunal found no fault with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its return. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
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 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 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 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 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 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 CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case, subject to payment of costs, given the circumstances of non-compliance and the nature of additions made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains arising from the transfer of mutual fund units are not taxable in India. The Tribunal reasoned that the units of mutual funds are not 'shares' for the purpose of the Income-tax Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. Citing the definition of 'share' under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fact that Indian mutual funds are established as trusts, not companies, the Tribunal concluded that mutual fund units do not qualify as shares. Consequently, gains from their alienation would fall under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA, which allows taxation only in the country of residence of the alienator. The Tribunal relied on its co-ordinate bench decisions in ITO v. Satish Beharilal Raheja, Dy.CIT (IT) v. K.E. Faizal, and Sanket Kanoi v. DCIT, which dealt with similar issues under various DTAAs and held that capital gains on mutual fund units are taxable only in the country of residence of the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, granting deduction in respect of the short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,35,66,368/- under the DTAA.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and sufficient. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to submit documents and that the Trust is genuine and imparting education. A lenient view was taken, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid for surrender of tenancy rights was a business expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred for commercial expediency to earn higher rental income. Consequently, other related grounds were rendered infructuous or academic.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not sufficiently verify the evidence presented by the assessee regarding purchases, unsecured loans, and GST penalty. Therefore, all these issues were remitted back to the AO for detailed verification.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these years were previously restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the ex-parte nature of the penalty orders, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored them to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was for AY 2019-20 and that the CIT(A) had made a mistake in dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to rectify the mistake and pass a detailed order on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to justify the addition made by the CPC, ignoring the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Homeland City Project Ltd, where a similar situation involving a mistake admitted by the Tax Auditor led to the deletion of disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the Tax Auditor, M/s Gyaneshwar Kataram and Associates, had admitted in a letter dated 17.03.2020 that the reporting of Rs. 40,25,474/- as Annual Membership and Subscription expenses in column 21(a) of the Tax Audit Report was an inadvertent mistake due to oversight, and that the sum was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was not capital or personal in nature. The assessee had also submitted a detailed breakup of expenses with invoices and bills, which the CIT(A) had overlooked. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not consider judicial decisions allowing such expenses and the fact that similar expenses were allowed in AY 2016-17. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the CPC and upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order for AY 2016-17 contained facts and figures pertaining to AY 2009-10. Due to this significant error and the potential denial of opportunity to the appellant, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence was brought on record by the AO to support the addition. The assessee demonstrated that the only transaction was a rental security deposit, which was refunded. Therefore, the addition made u/s 69 of the Act was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage if a substantial cause is shown for not producing it before the lower authorities, citing the case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence related to the core issues of cash deposits and immovable property investment and was material in the interest of justice. Therefore, the additional evidence for AY 2015-16 was accepted, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the self-assessment tax was paid, subject to rectification of the assessment year. Given that a rectification application was pending, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for verification of the tax payment and subsequent decision on merits. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed grounds 1 and 2 (related to transfer pricing adjustment for steel purchase) for statistical purposes. The Tribunal found the approach of the AO and TPO fallacious as they relied on data from the assessee using an 'other method' rather than examining actual independent steel purchase transactions during the relevant period and applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO for re-analysis using the CUP method with data from independent transactions. Grounds 3 and 4 (disallowance under Section 14A) were allowed, following the Delhi High Court decision in Chem Invested Ltd., holding that no addition can be made if no exempt income was earned. Ground 5 (disallowance under Section 14A for book profit) was allowed in favour of the assessee, as an identical issue was decided in another appeal. The judgment does not explicitly address grounds 7 and 8, nor does it provide a specific finding on the revised ground 1 concerning interest on loans to AEs, but the overall result indicates partial allowance.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., the ITAT held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, considering the facts and circumstances presented by the assessee in their affidavit. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence from the revenue to falsify the assessee's claims. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. On merits, the Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 6/2023 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.09.2023, and CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 further extended it to 30.06.2024. The assessee filed Form 10AB on 30.09.2023, which was within the permitted period. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order of the CIT(E) unsustainable. The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of the assessee's application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(E) within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment by the AO and TPO was fallacious and restored the matter for re-analysis using the CUP method. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made if no exempt income was earned, and allowed the ground related to book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that it has the discretion to allow the production of additional evidence at the appellate stage if the assessee satisfies a substantial cause for not producing it before the lower authorities. Citing the case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Director of Income Tax, the Tribunal found that the additional evidence related to the core issues of cash deposits and immovable property investment and was material in the interest of justice. Therefore, the additional evidence was accepted, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication after verification. For the second issue concerning AY 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the self-assessment tax, subject to the rectification of the assessment year in the challan, which was pending before the Income-tax Authority. In view of this, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of the self-assessment tax payment and subsequent decision on merits. Both grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay, as the assessee had filed it within the extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The finding of delay was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for section 80G registration without appreciating that the application was for 80G and that the 12AB registration was already granted. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the trust's old age, genuine objects, regular filing of returns, and the trustees' lack of familiarity with email communication. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to decide the issues of registration and exemption on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without reasoning and that cash receipts not explained through the cash book or other sources should be treated as additions under Section 68. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without reasoning and that cash receipts not explained through the cash book or other sources should be treated as additions under Section 68. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these years were previously restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the ex-parte nature of the penalty orders, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored them to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 114 days, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was decided ex parte. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 250 of the Act, which mandates that an appellate order must state the points of determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decision. This failure was attributed to a lack of proper communication, specifically the non-reflection of the assessee's detailed submission dated 13.11.2023 in the appellate order. The Tribunal noted that this submission contained elaborate narration of facts and figures supporting the assessee's explanation for the deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider this submission and examine the merits of the assessee's contentions regarding the deposits and their sources. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the revised Form 3CEB, which restricted the associated enterprise to only one entity, should be considered. The AO was directed to re-compute the transfer pricing adjustment based on this revised form and evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,07,88,100/- made by the AO under Section 40A(3). The assessee failed to provide adequate supporting documents, such as labour registers or attendance, to substantiate the cash payments made to labourers.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for these years were previously restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the ex-parte nature of the penalty orders, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored them to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained the necessary approval and had started incurring expenses on its charitable objects. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT to reconsider the application.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained the necessary approval and had started incurring expenses on its charitable objects. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT to reconsider the application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalties as the additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted or reduced by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner issued an order on 05.12.2024, the same date as the notice issued to the assessee to file submissions by 13.12.2024. This was considered an inadvertent error.