ITAT Nagpur Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, there was no bar to setting off losses against deemed income under Section 69C. Such income should be assessed under 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It upheld the penalties levied under Section 271AAB, finding no merit in the assessees' contention that the show cause notices were not validly issued.

The Tribunal held that the relationship between the AOP and its members was principal-to-principal, not contractor-subcontractor. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, there was no bar to set-off losses against deemed income under Section 69C. The deemed income should be treated as income from 'other sources' under Section 14.

The Tribunal held that the relationship between the AOP and its members was principal-to-principal, not contractor-subcontractor. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for investment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of consideration, not the date of the development agreement. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the revision order, lacking a DIN and not complying with the prescribed format for manual issuance, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Therefore, the Principal CIT's order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, there was no bar to setting off losses against deemed income under Section 69C. Such income should be treated as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the relationship between the AOP and its members was principal-to-principal, not contractor-subcontractor. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It upheld the penalties levied under Section 271AAB, finding no merit in the assessees' contention that the show cause notices were not validly issued.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 115BBE, there was no bar to set-off losses against deemed income under Section 69C. The deemed income should be treated as income from 'other sources' under Section 14.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that orders communicated without the mandatory DIN, and without specifying reasons and approval for the DIN-less communication as required by the circular, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Subsequent intimation of DIN does not cure this defect if the initial order violated the circular's provisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) could not be denied merely because the recognition of the payee institution was subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence to prove the donation was bogus.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified if the final assessment is framed under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144. This implies that the non-compliance with notices was either considered immaterial or the purpose of the notices was fulfilled by other means.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) could not be denied merely because the recognition of the payee institution was subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence to prove the donation was bogus.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not sufficient. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the grounds of appeal became academic.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not sufficient to condone it. Consequently, the grounds of appeal became academic and were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay as the reasons provided were not acceptable and lacked day-to-day explanations. Consequently, the grounds of appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's addition was found to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's initiation of revision proceedings under Section 263 was bad in law as it was based on an assessment order that had been superseded by a subsequent reassessment order. Therefore, the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Special Capital Incentive was not granted to meet the cost of any fixed asset and therefore, the proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was not justified.

The Tribunal observed that no addition was made in the assessment order giving effect to the section 263 order. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that a notice cannot be issued in the name of a dead person, rendering the notice and the subsequent order void-ab-initio. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) could not be denied merely because the recognition of the payee institution was subsequently withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence to prove the donation was bogus.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to properly examine certain issues, including TDS on interest payments, unsecured loans, and discounts to related parties. The AO also did not adequately verify interest expenditure on funds borrowed from SIDBI.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument as there was no proof of proper service of notice on the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument as there was no proof of the assessee being properly served the last hearing notice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was erroneous because there was no specific query or evidence sought regarding the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. The revision directions of the PCIT were confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanations for the impugned expenses and additions before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the deposits, their identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The reliance on a previous year's assessment was found to be without substance.