ITAT Nagpur Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI/PF is not a mistake apparent from the record, and thus the rectification application was rightly rejected. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) failed to discuss the grounds raised by the assessee and relied on the AO's order without independent consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the principle of consistency and the ITAT's prior decision in the assessee's own case regarding the allowability of prior period expenses.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the actual purchase price and the DVO's valuation was less than the 10% tolerance limit applicable to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). The Tribunal followed a previous ruling that the enhanced tolerance limit has retrospective effect.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the actual purchase price and the DVO's valuation was less than the statutory tolerance limit of 10%. The Tribunal further held that the enhanced tolerance margin of 10% has retrospective effect, being curative in nature.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds of limitation, without condoning the delay or considering the merits, was unwarranted. It emphasized a justice-oriented approach over rigid technicalities, especially when the delay was not deliberate.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds of limitation, without condoning the delay or considering the merits, was unwarranted. It emphasized a justice-oriented approach over rigid technicalities, especially when the delay was not deliberate.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds of limitation, without condoning the delay or considering the merits, was unwarranted. It emphasized a justice-oriented approach over rigid technicalities, especially when the delay was not deliberate.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under sections 11 & 12 should not lead to taxing gross receipts without allowing allowable expenditure. The principle of natural justice was also violated as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) was incorrect. The amendment allowing such disallowance prospectively from April 1, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) was incorrect as the specific provision for disallowing deduction claims under Chapter VI-A (Section 143(1)(a)(v)) was introduced prospectively. The Madras High Court's decision was also found distinguishable.

The Tribunal held that interest income from nationalized banks also qualifies for deduction under Section 80P, citing a precedent. The AO was directed to finalize the consequential computation.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits of the case. It also found that the NFAC did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order, violating the principles of natural justice and section 250(6) of the Act. The order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that dismissal on technical grounds of limitation, especially when the defect is curable and the delay does not appear deliberate, is not appropriate. The appellate authorities are expected to adopt a justice-oriented approach.

The Tribunal held that dismissing appeals on technical grounds of limitation without considering the merits is not in the interest of justice, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The NFAC's orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of appeals on technical grounds of limitation, without condoning the delay or considering the merits, was unwarranted. It emphasized a justice-oriented approach over rigid technicalities, especially when the delay was not deliberate.

The tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act, one must plead and prove they represent the estate of the deceased. Since this was not done, the appellant's claim was rejected.

The tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act, one must plead and prove they represent the estate of the deceased. Since this was not done, the appellant's claim was rejected.

The Tribunal held that while there was unexplained delay, the NFAC overlooked the period excluded by the Supreme Court for limitation. Non-filing of a condonation petition is a curable defect and should not deprive the assessee of a hearing on merits.

The Tribunal held that while there was unexplained delay, the NFAC overlooked the period excluded by the Supreme Court for limitation. Non-filing of a condonation petition is a curable defect and should not deprive the assessee of a hearing on merits.

The tribunal held that the appellant had failed to fulfill the statutory conditions to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, her claim to represent the deceased assessee's estate was rejected.

The tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act, one must plead and prove they represent the estate of the deceased. Since this was not done, the appellant's claim was rejected.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from nationalized banks by a cooperative society qualifies for deduction under Section 80P, citing a precedent. The deduction was allowed in principle, with the Assessing Officer to finalize the computation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that rejecting the 80G application without further opportunity, while the 12AB registration was pending and later remanded, violated principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act, one must plead and prove they represent the estate of the deceased. Since this was not done, the appellant's claim was rejected.

The tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative under the Income Tax Act, one must plead and prove they represent the estate of the deceased. Since this was not done, the appellant's claim was rejected.

The tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred by confirming the addition ex-parte without adjudicating the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal emphasized that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without discussing the merits.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to comply with requirements, the rejection was flawed due to a lack of a reasonable and effective opportunity to present its case, violating the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without a proper and effective opportunity to the assessee violated the principle of natural justice. The assessee's explanation for non-compliance was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not adhere to the principle of natural justice by rejecting the applications without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the time allowed under the Act, interpreting the relevant provision to apply to trusts that had not commenced activities at the time of provisional registration. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's 12AA registration was set aside in a separate appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notices and thus could not file the required details. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all necessary details and the addition was based on the deeming fiction of Section 50C, not on actual receipt of excess consideration. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allocate directors' remuneration based on the turnover ratio of the steel plant and the power plant. It agreed that the directors' involvement in the power plant's day-to-day operations was minimal, making the turnover-based allocation fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Section 143(1)(a)(v) for disallowing Chapter VI-A deductions has prospective effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the assessment year 2018-2019.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.