ITAT Nagpur Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause. It found that the merits of the case were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities and therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that 'ownership' of a residential house for the purpose of Section 54F implies absolute ownership, not joint ownership. It also noted that the two flats purchased were converted into a single residential unit and that the conveyance allowance claimed was allowable.

The ITAT condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause. It found that the merits of the case were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities and therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act at that time. The levy was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application without considering its merits and by not adhering to principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the audit report was obtained in time, there was a delay in its electronic furnishing. However, since the report was available before the assessment was completed and there was no loss of revenue, the penalty under section 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required to be adjudicated as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issue on merit by considering the material filed by the assessee. Since the CIT(A) did not consider any material, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is granted an opportunity to substantiate its case and provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not required for adjudication as they were duplicate files and the matters had already been heard and disposed of. Therefore, these appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It dismissed the addition for delayed employee PF/ESI payment, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The addition for delayed TDS/TCS payment was also dismissed as it was considered disallowable interest. The penalty for delayed car loan payment was allowed as it was not a contravention of law.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimated basis and the sales were accepted, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It dismissed the addition for delayed employee PF/ESI payment, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The addition for delayed TDS/TCS payment was also dismissed as it was considered disallowable interest. The penalty for delayed car loan payment was allowed as it was not a contravention of law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) had found that the bank account in question belonged to the partnership firm and not the assessee, and the transactions were duly explained in the firm's records.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding the merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case and pass a speaking order.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-appearance despite the assessee's submissions and the duty to pass a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration and a fresh order on merits.

The Tribunal deleted additions for unexplained deposits in AY 2010-11, partly allowed capital gains by directing computation of long-term capital gains, and dismissed an addition for interest income. For AY 2013-14, a substantial portion of unexplained deposits was deleted, with a lump sum addition confirmed to end litigation. For AY 2014-15, additions for unexplained deposits were significantly restricted after considering contra entries, auto-sweep transactions, interest income, and house property income.

The Tribunal deleted additions for unexplained deposits in AY 2010-11, partly allowed capital gains by directing computation of long-term capital gains, and dismissed an addition for interest income. For AY 2013-14, a substantial portion of unexplained deposits was deleted, with a lump sum addition confirmed to end litigation. For AY 2014-15, additions for unexplained deposits were significantly restricted after considering contra entries, auto-sweep transactions, interest income, and house property income.

The Tribunal deleted additions for unexplained deposits in AY 2010-11, partly allowed capital gains by directing computation of long-term capital gains, and dismissed an addition for interest income. For AY 2013-14, a substantial portion of unexplained deposits was deleted, with a lump sum addition confirmed to end litigation. For AY 2014-15, additions for unexplained deposits were significantly restricted after considering contra entries, auto-sweep transactions, interest income, and house property income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the audit report, citing a lack of NOC from the Chartered Accountant, was neither proven nor a reasonable cause. The penalty under section 271B was rightly confirmed.

The ITAT found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be credible and undisputed, concluding that there was reasonable cause. Therefore, the tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was not warranted and ordered its deletion.

The Tribunal deleted additions for unexplained deposits in AY 2010-11, partly allowed capital gains by directing computation of long-term capital gains, and dismissed an addition for interest income. For AY 2013-14, a substantial portion of unexplained deposits was deleted, with a lump sum addition confirmed to end litigation. For AY 2014-15, additions for unexplained deposits were significantly restricted after considering contra entries, auto-sweep transactions, interest income, and house property income.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80AC are mandatory, requiring the return of income to be filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the belated filing of the return disentitles the assessee from claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from investments made in the course of its banking business. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. judgment.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench in the case of a partner of the assessee firm. The Tribunal also noted that similar interest deductions had been allowed in the past.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not a fit case for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the service charges collected were in the nature of income and not a liability. The assessee's argument that the funds belonged to the Government and were held in a fiduciary capacity was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh as per CBDT circulars. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report was infirm and not substantiated by evidence, particularly as it was obtained before the share allotment date and the valuer's rate was not corroborated. The Assessing Officer's calculation of a negative net worth due to continuous losses was considered correct.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits as recycling of funds and that the significant cash balance reflected in the balance sheet was a continuing balance from earlier years. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits as recycling of funds and that the significant cash balance reflected in the balance sheet was a continuing balance from earlier years. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the documents submitted by the assessee and that the rejection order was passed in a perfunctory manner. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in depositing PF contributions, when the due date falls on a Sunday or gazetted holiday, is condonable under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. The assessee's bona fide intention to deposit was also considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the documents submitted by the assessee and that the rejection order was passed in a perfunctory manner. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The AO had made a fresh assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 and accepted the original assessment. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that while Section 269SS was amended to include sale consideration, the penalty was not leviable in this case.

The Tribunal found an anomaly in the facts and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing a hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a change of opinion, and the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the remuneration based on case law and the fact that the expenditure was incurred by the firm.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the tax liability had been settled under the VSV scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly invoked Section 154 to rectify the mistake of allowing a deduction under Section 80IA when the return was filed belatedly, as per Section 80AC. The Tribunal found the assessee's cited case laws distinguishable.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10 should be condoned as it was furnished before the completion of assessment. Since the assessee otherwise fulfilled the conditions of section 11(2), the addition made by the AO was quashed.