ITAT Nagpur Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the obligation to deduct tax at source needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191. Cases where eligible persons furnished Form 15G/15H and their tax liability on total income was Nil, or senior citizens furnished Form 15H, should be excluded from TDS obligation.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act is applicable only to land and building, and not to lease rights. Therefore, the addition of long-term capital gains based on stamp duty value was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This procedural defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act is applicable only to land and building, and not to lease rights. Therefore, the addition of long-term capital gains based on stamp duty value was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions as there was no incriminating material found during the search to support the assessment under Section 153A. The appeals were decided in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deemed non est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deemed non est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deemed non est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had no merit because a coordinate bench had already reversed the PCIT's revision directions. The CIT(A)'s findings were affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deemed non est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to not press the appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions as there was no incriminating material found during the search to support the assessment under Section 153A. The appeals were dismissed based on this finding.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds challenging the additions by framing points of determination and providing detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not specify whether the case was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This procedural defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal could not be sustained as the tax effect of the disputed addition was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice under Section 274 did not specify whether the case was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was invalid.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal as the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed in terms of the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's sole substantive grievance involved an amount less than the minimum tax effect threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to discuss the objects and activities of the trust and provide categorical findings on their charitable nature after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive, granted for establishing industries in underdeveloped regions, is a capital receipt. This is based on the purpose of the scheme, which is to promote industrial development and not to increase the profitability of the business.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without discussing the details submitted by the assessee and without making a categorical finding on the charitable nature of the objects and activities. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not discuss the objects or activities of the trust and failed to provide a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case and to verify the charitable nature of the objects and activities.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not justified as the delay was due to a bonafide reason and constituted a technical breach. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance for sub-contractor payments due to the assessee's failure to provide complete documentation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not justified as the delay was due to a bonafide reason and constituted a technical breach. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance for sub-contractor payments due to the assessee's failure to provide complete documentation.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide necessary documents but granted them one more opportunity to rectify the shortcomings. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed before the Mumbai Bench.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide necessary documents but granted them one more opportunity to rectify the shortcomings. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.