Loading ITAT cases…
1,140 orders · Page 6 of 23
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was not effectively represented before the CIT(Exemptions). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without specific corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. The denial of cross-examination of the third party was also a significant factor.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the reasons for reopening within a reasonable time and did not dispose of the assessee's objections by way of a speaking order. This was a breach of principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is not invariably required for registration under section 12AB, as Rule 17A(2)(b) allows for institutions established otherwise than under an instrument to submit documents evidencing their establishment. The Tribunal clarified that Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, excludes public religious or charitable endowments, thus Section 5 thereof cannot be used to insist on a written instrument for such trusts. The absence of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court is also not an independent ground for rejection. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not adequately examined the alternative documentary evidence of establishment, such as Charity Commissioner's registration certificates, earlier income-tax registration orders, and evidence of objects and activities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, directing the Commissioner to examine the substantive evidentiary value of the provided documents and decide the applications by a reasoned order after affording the Assessees an opportunity of being heard. The principle of consistency, as laid down in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, was also noted as supporting due consideration of previously accepted foundational facts.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of alleged on-money receipts should be restricted to 8% of the identified receipts, not 15% as sustained by the CIT(A). The reasoning was that the Revenue had not established that the entire gross receipt represented income, nor that project-related expenditure arose from an independent source, nor that reliable material existed for estimating on-money in respect of unidentified units. The Tribunal also deleted the 5% disallowance from subcontracting expenditure, finding no identified defect in the assessee's supporting documents. The adjustment retained by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the AO was directed to restore the amount to Work-in-Progress. Regarding section 43CA, the AO was permitted to examine its applicability in the legally appropriate year upon corresponding revenue recognition, with due opportunity to the assessee. The grounds challenging the validity of section 147 proceedings were dismissed as not pressed. Additional legal grounds concerning section 148 were left open and treated as academic. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals entirely.
The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be denied solely on the ground of absence of an explicit irrevocability clause, referencing a Bombay High Court judgment. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that both grounds for refusing the renewal of registration under Section 12A cannot be sustained. Firstly, the fact that Mrs. Divya Mathur was treated in a 'private category' does not automatically lead to the inference that she was not experiencing financial indigence or economic hardship. It is common experience that prolonged treatment for life-threatening diseases can exhaust the finances of individuals, leading them to seek assistance. Secondly, the reasoning that the assistance extended to Mrs. Divya Mathur constituted approximately 25% of the total expenditure is also not acceptable. The Tribunal noted that no other reasons were provided for the rejection, and the appellant is an old trust with a long-standing registration and approval. Consequently, the order refusing renewal of Section 80G approval, being consequential to the Section 12A refusal, was also set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to grant renewal of registration/approval under Section 12AA/80G in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of alleged on-money receipts should be restricted to 8% of the identified receipts, not 15% as sustained by the CIT(A). The reasoning was that the Revenue had not established that the entire gross receipt represented income, nor that project-related expenditure arose from an independent source, nor that reliable material existed for estimating on-money in respect of unidentified units. The Tribunal also deleted the 5% disallowance from subcontracting expenditure, finding no identified defect in the assessee's supporting documents. The adjustment retained by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the AO was directed to restore the amount to Work-in-Progress. Regarding section 43CA, the AO was permitted to examine its applicability in the legally appropriate year upon corresponding revenue recognition, with due opportunity to the assessee. The grounds challenging the validity of section 147 proceedings were dismissed as not pressed. Additional legal grounds concerning section 148 were left open and treated as academic. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals entirely.
The Tribunal held that Accentia Technologies Ltd. could not be considered a comparable company due to functional differences and lack of segmental information. The disallowance of prior period expenses was also contested.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a proper and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to furnish required details. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that procedural and technical lapses should not prevent the adjudication of substantive rights, especially when the lapses are curable. The assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal held that a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is not invariably required for registration under section 12AB, as Rule 17A(2)(b) allows for institutions established otherwise than under an instrument to submit documents evidencing their establishment. The Tribunal clarified that Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, excludes public religious or charitable endowments, thus Section 5 thereof cannot be used to insist on a written instrument for such trusts. The absence of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court is also not an independent ground for rejection. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not adequately examined the alternative documentary evidence of establishment, such as Charity Commissioner's registration certificates, earlier income-tax registration orders, and evidence of objects and activities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, directing the Commissioner to examine the substantive evidentiary value of the provided documents and decide the applications by a reasoned order after affording the Assessees an opportunity of being heard. The principle of consistency, as laid down in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, was also noted as supporting due consideration of previously accepted foundational facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,59,57,507 on account of alleged client code modification loss and the consequential addition of Rs.1,59,575 towards commission. The Tribunal found that while the AO extensively discussed the general mechanism of CCM misuse, the assessment order lacked assessee-specific material. It did not identify the original client, the counterparty, any broker's statement implicating the assessee, or any instruction for modification or cash trail. The Tribunal noted that the AO placed the burden on the assessee to prove a negative without the Revenue discharging its initial burden with cogent material. Following the decision in DCIT v. Modern India Ltd., which held that general investigation findings are insufficient to sustain additions without transaction-specific material and an evidentiary link to the assessee, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds. The consequential commission addition was also deleted as the foundational allegation was not established. The assessee's cross-objection on jurisdictional grounds was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were from accommodation entry providers, the goods were likely purchased from the grey market and corresponding sales were recorded. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to determine the appropriate gross profit to be taxed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS) dated 05.09.2022 and the Demat account statement. The Tribunal acknowledged that these documents were not available before the AO and required verification at the assessment stage. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the delivery/transfer of shares with reference to the additional evidence. The AO was directed to confine the examination strictly to this limited issue and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the claim at this stage. The Special Audit (SA) was dismissed as infructuous. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lapse in representation but also noted the significant additions made. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lapse in representation but also noted the significant additions made. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits.
The Tribunal held that an effective opportunity to substantiate a claim is crucial for fair adjudication. The CIT(A) failed to provide this opportunity, thus necessitating a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the penalty proceedings, being an offshoot of the assessment, were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an untested statement of a third party without adequate corroboration and independent inquiry. The seized material and statements did not sufficiently establish the nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is not invariably required for registration under section 12AB, as Rule 17A(2)(b) allows for institutions established otherwise than under an instrument to submit documents evidencing their establishment. The Tribunal clarified that Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, excludes public religious or charitable endowments, thus Section 5 thereof cannot be used to insist on a written instrument for such trusts. The absence of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court is also not an independent ground for rejection. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not adequately examined the alternative documentary evidence of establishment, such as Charity Commissioner's registration certificates, earlier income-tax registration orders, and evidence of objects and activities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, directing the Commissioner to examine the substantive evidentiary value of the provided documents and decide the applications by a reasoned order after affording the Assessees an opportunity of being heard. The principle of consistency, as laid down in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, was also noted as supporting due consideration of previously accepted foundational facts.
The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69A, finding that the cash transactions in the WhatsApp messages could not be entirely attributed to the assessee. For the purchase issue, the addition from Creative Corporation was restricted to 5%, and the relief granted for G.M. Enterprise was sustained.
The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69A, finding that the cash transactions in the WhatsApp messages could not be entirely attributed to the assessee. For the purchase issue, the addition from Creative Corporation was restricted to 5%, and the relief granted for G.M. Enterprise was sustained.
The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69A, finding that the cash transactions in the WhatsApp messages could not be entirely attributed to the assessee. For the purchase issue, the addition from Creative Corporation was restricted to 5%, and the relief granted for G.M. Enterprise was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable due to a fundamental factual error in the reasons recorded, indicating a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the sanctioning authority. This error concerned the nature of the original assessment, which was crucial for reopening beyond four years.
The Tribunal held that only the amount actually invested during the relevant financial year can be considered under section 69. The addition of the balance amount paid in subsequent years was deleted. The issue of payments made in the relevant year was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is not invariably required for registration under section 12AB, as Rule 17A(2)(b) allows for institutions established otherwise than under an instrument to submit documents evidencing their establishment. The Tribunal clarified that Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, excludes public religious or charitable endowments, thus Section 5 thereof cannot be used to insist on a written instrument for such trusts. The absence of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court is also not an independent ground for rejection. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not adequately examined the alternative documentary evidence of establishment, such as Charity Commissioner's registration certificates, earlier income-tax registration orders, and evidence of objects and activities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, directing the Commissioner to examine the substantive evidentiary value of the provided documents and decide the applications by a reasoned order after affording the Assessees an opportunity of being heard. The principle of consistency, as laid down in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, was also noted as supporting due consideration of previously accepted foundational facts.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of 70% of the deposits as unexplained lacked a discernible basis in the cash flow considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no material showing that the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the 136-day delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be sufficient cause, considering the ex parte assessment and lack of mala fide intent. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that MEIS incentives are revenue receipts, chargeable to tax under both normal provisions and Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision. The CIT(A)'s contrary finding was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G solely on the ground of delay without affording the assessee a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and seek condonation. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) recorded that the assessee had not offered comments on the delay and failed to demonstrate reasonable cause. However, the assessee's specific case was that no show-cause notice was issued regarding the delay. Considering the CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 which extended due dates for filing Form Nos. 10A/10AB, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee to file its explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence, and thereafter adjudicate the condonation in a lenient approach. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to decide the applications on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the absence of substantial expenditure alone is not a ground for rejection, and enabling clauses for foreign activities do not constitute a violation if no income is actually applied outside India. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll under a concession agreement is an intangible asset covered under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on such an asset.
The Tribunal held that the absence of substantial expenditure alone is not a ground for rejection, and enabling clauses for foreign activities do not constitute a violation if no income is actually applied outside India. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.