ITAT Nagpur Judgments — February 2024

For AY 2006-07, the Tribunal quashed the assessment as there was no reference to any seized incriminating material in an unabated assessment. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the additions, relying on seized material and the precedent set in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that TDS provisions do not apply if the income is not liable to be assessed in the hands of the recipient. Since the collection agents denied their taxability and this was not rebutted, the assessee could not be treated as being in default.

The Tribunal held that TDS provisions do not apply if the income is not liable to be assessed in the hands of the recipient. Since the collection agents denied their taxability and this was not rebutted, the assessee could not be treated as being in default.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all necessary documentary evidence, including interest certificates and Form 16. Since the Revenue failed to rebut this evidence, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The tribunal noted that Section 143(1)(a)(iv) allows for disallowance of expenditure. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, which was granted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable if PF dues are not remitted by the due date under the respective law, not by the return filing due date. The adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) for disallowance of expenditure is permissible.

The Tribunal held that TDS provisions do not apply if the income is not liable to be assessed in the hands of the recipient. Since the collection agents denied their taxability and this was not rebutted, the assessee could not be treated as being in default.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessee bears the onus to prove their case with relevant facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's rectification application was not maintainable as it involved subjective adjudication and detailed inquiries, which are beyond the scope of Section 154 proceedings. The NFAC's reversal of the AO's decision was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the agreement to sell was executed in 2008, and the sale deed was to be executed in 2009. The subsequent transfer in the relevant previous year due to court execution proceedings did not attract Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, as the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

For AY 2006-07, the Tribunal quashed the assessment as there was no reference to any seized incriminating material in an unabated assessment. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the additions, relying on seized material and the precedent set in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal as there was no valid cause of action. The assessee's learned counsel failed to rebut this fact.

For AY 2006-07, the Tribunal quashed the assessment as there was no reference to any seized incriminating material in an unabated assessment. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the additions, relying on seized material and the precedent set in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (agreement to sale and bank statement) filed by the assessee, which was not presented before the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order for de-novo adjudication after considering this new evidence.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting agricultural land into non-agricultural plots and selling them constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, thus business activity. The AO had failed to properly analyze the development agreement and conduct necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. It was held that merely following up with the TDS Officer without filing a formal application does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay.

The assessee filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement, which granted the developer rights as a licensee, did not constitute a transfer of property under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act in the year of agreement. The capital gains were rightly offered to tax in the year the assessee received their share of constructed area.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement, which granted the developer rights as a licensee, did not constitute a transfer of property under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act in the year of agreement. The capital gains were rightly offered to tax in the year the assessee received their share of constructed area.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure on share application money is a revenue expenditure and is allowable under the Act. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and held that the assessee's ignorance of the audit requirement due to it being their first time exceeding the turnover limit constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision under Section 263 as the AO had failed to conduct necessary inquiries before allowing certain claims. The assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.