ITAT Nagpur Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without ensuring proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the assessee did not furnish details to the AO. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed deposit of TDS, TCS, and income tax is not an allowable deduction as it pertains to taxes on income. The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to provide any favorable judgments to support its claims.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving several opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by submitting documents not previously provided to the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also failed to exercise powers under Section 250(4) for proper inquiry. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as the notices were issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. It also noted that contingent provisions are not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 67 does not disentitle the assessee to foreign tax credit, relying on various co-ordinate bench decisions. The Tribunal found that Rule 128(9) does not mandate disallowance for delayed filing and that DTAA provisions override the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were time-barred as the notices were issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. It also noted that contingent provisions are not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made due inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA was not applicable as the transactions (agreements and payments) were completed before its introduction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the adjournment application and that the order was not a speaking order. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the transactions were speculative in nature due to the lack of evidence of actual delivery of goods. However, it directed that the speculative loss should be set off against a speculative profit of Rs. 8,35,982.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's evidence and submissions regarding the genuineness of commission expenses and the cash deposit. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that late submission of Form 15G/H should not lead to disallowance when the forms were genuine.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the inability of the CIT(E) to open the uploaded files was a technical issue with the portal and not the fault of the assessee. Therefore, the rejection of the application on this ground was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's evidence and submissions regarding the genuineness of commission expenses and the cash deposit. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that late submission of Form 15G/H should not lead to disallowance when the forms were genuine.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision which distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars. The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee society from deposits made with other banks, out of operational funds to meet eventualities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A and Section 250(4) by accepting additional evidence without remanding it to the AO for verification. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's claim was made in good faith and not with mala fide intention. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for a preceding assessment year, which had also deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹1.40 lakh without cogent reasons, especially considering the assessee's cash-driven business. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this amount.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving multiple opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the difficulties faced by the assessee during the COVID period and the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending compliances. The matter was restored to the AO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from bank investments, made to maintain operational funds and meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society on its investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The facts were distinguished from the Totgars' case, and a coordinate bench's decision was followed.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had given opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C, which introduced a tolerance band of 10% for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee is a genuine agriculturist and the investment could be from savings from agricultural income. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merges into the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3). Since the section 143(3) assessment accepted the returned income, the adjustments made in the 143(1)(a) intimation were annulled.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that although opportunities were given, the order was ex-parte. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay was accepted as a genuine oversight due to the workload of the chartered accountant's office.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the return erroneously, resulting in double taxation. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.