ITAT Nagpur Judgments — October 2023

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.

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.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The penalty appeal was deemed infructuous as a result.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The penalty appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts required verification of the assessee's books of accounts in light of Supreme Court rulings. The disallowance of depreciation on software was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a substantial delay in filing. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, particularly concerning the period after the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in applying decisions related to completed assessments. In this case, the assessment proceedings were open and abated, allowing the use of any unearthed material. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, pending proceedings against a corporate debtor are prohibited once CIRP commences. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) and held that the profit arising from the sale of agricultural land, which was consistently treated as stock-in-trade, is taxable as business profit. The assessee's claim of an accounting mistake was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s directions to the Assessing Officer to set aside the issue for fresh verification were not sustainable in law. The substantive grounds were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds raised by the assessees. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds raised by the assessees. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents, and the CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide factual foundation for the claim that interest paid to NBFCs was in the nature of hire purchase charges. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194A were applicable, and the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns. It directed the CIT (Exemptions) to decide the registration application afresh, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of search proceedings under Section 132 against the assessee, even in his capacity as Dean of the institution, was sufficient to trigger Section 153A proceedings. The assessee's name being included in the search warrant was considered decisive.

The CIT(A) had previously held that the receipts were allowable deductions. This tribunal's order, which reversed the revision directions and was upheld by the High Court, rendered the second round of assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on unabsorbed depreciation, relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was also deleted as the assessee had non-interest bearing funds exceeding interest-free loans.

The Tribunal held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as per the Standing Order. Therefore, the appeal was rejected as returned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal, having merely extracted the assessee's submissions and accepted them cryptically. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction because the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the nature of the asset sold and the applicability of Section 50B (slump sale). The assessee's appeal against the PCIT's order was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of search proceedings under Section 132 against the assessee, even in his capacity as Dean of the institution, was sufficient to trigger Section 153A proceedings. The assessee's name being included in the search warrant was considered decisive.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not maintainable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and ITAT Pune Bench.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not maintainable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and ITAT Pune Bench.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside an assessment order for verification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a dissolution clause alone should not lead to rejection if the trust's objects are charitable and its activities are genuine. The CIT(E) was directed to grant registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and setting aside the order for verification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.

The ITAT found that the CIT(Appeals) had erred by allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and directing the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not have the power to set aside the order to the Assessing Officer for verification and could not decide the appeal as 'statistically allowed'. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not have the power to set aside the order to the Assessing Officer for verification and could not decide the appeal as 'statistically allowed'. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required under Section 271(1)(c), vitiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, invoking the wrong section initially for AY 2015-16 also vitiated those proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required under Section 271(1)(c), vitiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, invoking the wrong section initially for AY 2015-16 also vitiated those proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not have the power to set aside the order to the Assessing Officer for verification and could not decide the appeal as 'statistically allowed'. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required under Section 271(1)(c), vitiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, invoking the wrong section initially for AY 2015-16 also vitiated those proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide the necessary documents to establish the charitable nature and genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to such claims cannot be continued.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to such claims cannot be continued.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to such claims cannot be continued.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices through the ITBA portal. The revenue had no objection to remanding the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and provided the assessee a final opportunity to represent the case. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter as per law and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and provided the assessee a final opportunity to represent the case. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter as per law and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Rule 46A(3) by not giving the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly verified the provision for overlay expenses and its impact on book profit computation under Section 115JB. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and provided the assessee a final opportunity to represent the case. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter as per law and principles of natural justice.