ITAT Nagpur Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of share premium on the issue of fresh shares is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and the proviso to Section 68 were not applicable for the assessment year 2012-13.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the co-operative society on FDRs with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is derived from its business activities. The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one opportunity to present their case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable when expenditure is already recorded in the regular books of account and the source of such expenditure is evident from the books. The Tribunal found that the AO had not doubted the source of expenditure, and therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 69C were not met.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of ₹60 lakh as per the CBDT circular. The circular also applies to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the adjournment application and provided a sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Following principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had failed to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the loss on the sale of NPAs to an ARC is a crystallized business loss and is revenue in nature, deductible under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the SARAFESI Act is applicable to co-operative banks, and the sale of NPAs does not amount to a double deduction.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of share premium on the issue of fresh shares is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and the proviso to Section 68 were not applicable for the assessment year 2012-13.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to written-off sundry balances, considering it a business expense allowable in the year of abandonment of a project. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the cash transactions was reasonable, especially since the transactions were between family members and friends. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271D was considered untenable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the gross profit on unrecorded sales, stating that the entire sales amount cannot be treated as income. The addition was estimated at the average gross profit rate of the last three years.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the co-operative society on FDRs with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is derived from its business activities. The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking application of mind, failing to admit additional evidence or conduct proper inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding reasonable cause. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay before the CIT(A), and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee cooperative society from its investments made with a cooperative bank 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 noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of share premium on the issue of fresh shares is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and the proviso to Section 68 were not applicable for the assessment year 2012-13.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct sufficient inquiry and the appellate order was cryptic. Considering the assessee's age and health, and the need for justice, the case was set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It noted the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without application of mind and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect on the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one opportunity to present their case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee's ill health. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the Revenue opposed restoring the matter, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the entire deposit could not be treated as income and directed the Assessing Officer to calculate profit at 1% on the transactions. The addition under Section 69A was quashed as the nature and source of deposits were established.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, to uphold principles of natural justice, a further opportunity should be granted. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their case, following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the issues forming the basis of the revision under Section 263 were different from the issues for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require giving the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Pooja expenses incurred for festivals and maintaining a positive working environment are allowable under Section 37 of the Act. They relied on previous judicial pronouncements and CBDT circulars that treat such expenses as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the gross profit rate to 25% without issuing a proper enhancement notice. The order of the CIT(A) was quashed to the extent of the enhancement.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from short-term deposits with a nationalized bank, maintained for operational funds and to meet any eventuality, qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ratio of the Supreme Court in Totgars Co-op Sale Society Ltd. was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that the issues forming the basis of the revision under Section 263 were different from the issues for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were considered bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order and had not adjudicated the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require one more opportunity for the assessee. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a glaring anomaly in the computation of demand, which was admitted as flawed by the Revenue. Consequently, the demand raised was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on surplus funds invested with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.

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

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order despite giving several opportunities. Adhering to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.