ITAT Nagpur Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), directing that a final opportunity be granted to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear on the appointed date without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as the applicability of Section 80AC and the claim in a return under Section 80AC(5) were not addressed. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as the amendment was prospective and the assessment year predated its effective date.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after rejecting the assessee's adjournment application. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), directing that a final opportunity be granted to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear on the appointed date without seeking further adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A), directing that a final opportunity be granted to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was warned against seeking further adjournments.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as the applicability of Section 80AC and the claim in a return under Section 80AC(5) were not addressed. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as the amendment was prospective and the assessment year predated its effective date.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary facts and evidence within three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not factually rebutted the assessee's stand regarding the timing of bonus payment. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it solely for want of prosecution. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It further held that interest income from nationalized banks also qualifies for this deduction.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Similarly, interest income derived from nationalized/other banks also qualifies for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It further held that interest income from nationalized banks also qualifies for this deduction.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case. It held that the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 194A needs to be determined in light of Explanation to Section 191, excluding cases where declarations in Form 15G/15H were validly furnished and the interest income did not exceed the basic exemption limit. Interest under Section 201(1A) is payable even if the assessee is not in default under Section 201(1), but only if there was an obligation to deduct tax at source.

The tribunal held that the penalty was unwarranted as the error was a bonafide mistake by the auditor, supported by audited financial statements. Furthermore, the penalty notice failed to specify whether the offense was underreporting or misreporting of income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical objections. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's parents had means and that the assessee was a proprietor of a business. Therefore, a full addition was not justified, and a partial addition was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including a possession letter. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot stand once the underlying quantum addition has been deleted. Therefore, the penalty is rendered unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and abate on the death of the assessee. Since the penalty was imposed during the assessee's lifetime, its recovery from the legal representative is not permissible as per Section 159(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding agricultural land sale, it found the onus not sufficiently discharged. Consequently, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was affirmed, with the remaining Rs. 14,00,000/- relief granted.

The tribunal has corrected a typographical error in the appeal number and paragraph reference within its previous order. This correction does not alter the substance of the original decision.

The Tribunal held that employees of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, who were subsequently transferred to successor entities like MSPGCL, are entitled to the Section 10(10AA) exemption. This is because their services first vested in the State Government and then were transferred, preserving their service conditions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Section 143(1)(a)(v) for disallowing Chapter VI-A deductions for late filing has prospective effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an 'Intimation for Recovery' is not a maintainable appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeals filed before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an 'Intimation for Recovery' is not a maintainable appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeals filed before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal as required by law. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order did not adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the sale agreement date was not substantiated with evidence and rejected it. However, the issue regarding the computation of capital gains under Section 50C was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of DVO report.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide effective hearing opportunities and adjudicate the substantive grounds on merits.