ITAT Nagpur Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any tangible material. The original assessment under Section 143(3) was presumed to have been made with due application of mind.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,29,21,196 under Section 69C, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The CIT(A) had found that the cash was paid by customers who booked plots through the assessee and was entered in the assessee's name in the cash book of M/s Tirupati Developers. The Tribunal agreed that the impounded documents from a third party were not conclusive evidence and that the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence. The assessee had provided documentary evidence showing that these cash payments were made by customers to M/s Tirupati Developers, against which sale deeds were executed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted as an agent and handed over the money to the principal, and the expenditure was not incurred from the assessee's own resources. The Tribunal found the invocation of Section 69C to be fragile and misconceived, as the assessee had not incurred any expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,41,750 on account of marketing income, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the impounded documents were not conclusive and that the assessee had disclosed its share of income which was more than what was mentioned in the impounded documents. The Tribunal found no interference called for in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) found that the impounded documents were not conclusive, lacked corroboration, and the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence that were not properly considered by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was found to be correct and supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was found to be correct and supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was found to be correct and supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was found to be correct and supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing the name, address, PAN, and share application form of the investor, and the transaction was routed through banking channels. The AO failed to produce material to discredit the transaction, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing the name, address, PAN, and share application form of the investor, and the transaction was routed through banking channels. The AO failed to produce material to discredit the transaction, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was concurred with, and the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee technically contravened Section 269T, the penalty under Section 271E was not leviable. This was due to business exigency and the fact that the transactions were genuine and accounted for, with no doubt raised about the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and that the additions made by the AO were unwarranted. The Tribunal found no compelling reasons to differ from the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, is invalid due to the absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the late fee charged for the assessment year 2013-14 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the short-term capital loss was unjustified. It found that the transactions were through banking channels, corroborated by company records and the buyer's tax return, and that the intention to avoid tax alone does not render a genuine transaction invalid.

The Tribunal refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals, stating that the assessee had not come before them with clean hands and their actions were not bonafide. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed without delving into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the rectification application as the assessee's AR had not pressed the grounds related to Section 148, which included Ground No. 5. No error apparent from the record was found to warrant rectification.

The Tribunal refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals, stating that the assessee had not come before them with clean hands and their actions were not bonafide. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed without delving into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and held that the addition made under Section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the creditors had appeared and confirmed the advances, stating their source was agricultural income and sand business, and these advances were later adjusted with sales or repaid.

The Tribunal held that while there was a delay in filing the tax audit report, it was available before the Assessing Officer during the assessment. Since there was no loss of revenue to the department, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the loss on sale of shares while computing the book profit. The net profit as per the Profit and Loss account, which includes both gains and losses on sale of shares, should be the basis for book profit calculation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications regarding loans and advances, sale of shares, and interest income. Consequently, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment and directing fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to substantiate their case, with a directive to avoid unjustified adjournments.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's estimation of 8% profit on sub-contracted work was confirmed by the CIT(A), a lower profit margin of 4% is more appropriate given the sub-contracting nature of the work. Consequently, the addition was reduced.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it was passed without examining the crucial issue of a substantial forfeited amount. Therefore, the PCIT's order directing a fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of prior period expenses is a debatable matter requiring detailed examination, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, it cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the trust had maintained records of donor identities and addresses, thus Section 115BBC was not applicable. The AO's invocation of the section was deemed incorrect as the trust had discharged its onus by providing donor details.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) to uphold the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the loans taken by the assessee were for temporary arrangements to manage educational institutions due to delays in government grants. The Tribunal found no violation of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act or the Income Tax Act and considered the assessee's noble cause.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 32AC. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the conditions of the section and the AO's reasoning for disallowance was not legally tenable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271E is not leviable when the advances were treated as unexplained cash credits and considered as part of income. Repayment of such alleged advances is considered a withdrawal of income already offered for tax, not a loan or deposit subject to Section 269T.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of explaining the nature and source of the cash deposits. The lower authorities had brushed aside the submitted evidence without proper inquiry, and the Assessing Officer's selective disbelieving of certain deposits was inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with other co-operative banks or scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application on the ground of delay in filing for final registration, as the assessee had applied after obtaining provisional registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the forfeited advance amount is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that Section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with such forfeitures, was introduced prospectively and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.