Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal, acknowledging the need for natural justice for small Trusts, set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the applications on their merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present its case.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications due to non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee's representative requested an additional opportunity to furnish the required details. The Tribunal, taking a sympathetic view towards small trusts and emphasizing the importance of affording full opportunity in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the impugned orders. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(E) to adjudicate the matters on merits and in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance due to oversight or a request for a short extension should not automatically lead to rejection without a fair hearing, especially for charitable trusts. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee has opted to settle disputes under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, with a liberty to file fresh appeals if the Department's decision is not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order lacked specific mention of the sub-clauses of Section 270A(2) under which the penalty was levied. The Tribunal noted that the penalty for misreporting is 200% and for under-reporting is 50%, and there's no provision for a 100% penalty. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumptions were baseless and that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The SEBI's acquittal orders for the companies involved dispelled the doubts raised by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumptions were baseless and that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The SEBI's acquittal orders for the companies involved dispelled the doubts raised by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was primarily a passive investor and the activity of selling plots did not amount to a business activity. The conversion of land and sale of plots was considered a realization of capital investment rather than an adventure in the nature of trade.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each of the Revenue's appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The Tribunal noted that this revised limit also applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable. The specific tax demands for each appeal were enumerated, with the highest being Rs. 57,02,276/- for ITA No. 173/NAG/2016 and the lowest being Rs. 43,65,772/- for ITA No. 174/NAG/2016. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the consolidated order if it was later found that the appeals fell under any exceptions provided in the aforementioned CBDT Circular. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each of the Revenue's appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The Tribunal noted that this revised limit also applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable. The specific tax demands for each appeal were enumerated, with the highest being Rs. 57,02,276/- for ITA No. 173/NAG/2016 and the lowest being Rs. 43,65,772/- for ITA No. 174/NAG/2016. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the consolidated order if it was later found that the appeals fell under any exceptions provided in the aforementioned CBDT Circular. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each of the Revenue's appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The Tribunal noted that this revised limit also applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable. The specific tax demands for each appeal were enumerated, with the highest being Rs. 57,02,276/- for ITA No. 173/NAG/2016 and the lowest being Rs. 43,65,772/- for ITA No. 174/NAG/2016. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the consolidated order if it was later found that the appeals fell under any exceptions provided in the aforementioned CBDT Circular. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each of the Revenue's appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The Tribunal noted that this revised limit also applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable. The specific tax demands for each appeal were enumerated, with the highest being Rs. 57,02,276/- for ITA No. 173/NAG/2016 and the lowest being Rs. 43,65,772/- for ITA No. 174/NAG/2016. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the consolidated order if it was later found that the appeals fell under any exceptions provided in the aforementioned CBDT Circular. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and no mala fide intention. The Tribunal observed that the rejection was primarily on a technical ground, and other tribunals have previously held that a wrong sub-section mention should not lead to cancellation of registration. The Tribunal also noted that recent amendments in the Union Budget 2025 propose to overlook such technical errors.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s action was unjustified and against natural justice. The use of an incorrect sub-section was a technical error and not a valid reason for cancelling the registration, especially when the activities were genuine and other requirements were met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus by providing all documentary evidence of genuine share transactions, including purchase through banking channels, dematerialization, and sale through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide specific evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation or connivance with entry operators, relying instead on a general investigation report that was not specific to the assessee's transactions. Thus, the addition under section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not have an enabling provision for such levy before the amendment. Therefore, the demand for late fees and interest was invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to a reasonable cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, making the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable. It was found that the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating documents were unearthed during the search, which is a prerequisite for invoking section 263 in such cases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observations about no agricultural activities were unsustainable, especially since the department had accepted the agricultural income in earlier years. Minor discrepancies in bills are not fatal, and the additions under Sections 69A and 69C were set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions that held appeals with low tax effect, below the monetary limits set by CBDT circulars, should be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable as the agreement to sell was executed prior to the insertion of the relevant sub-clause. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumptions were baseless and that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The SEBI's acquittal orders for the companies involved dispelled the doubts raised by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the assessee's shifting stand and lack of evidence unacceptable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to prove the source of the deposits and did not provide any documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during demonetization, which formed part of the audited books and were linked to reported cash sales, could not be added entirely without proper verification, especially since books of account were not rejected. The Tribunal found the AO's action baseless.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could explain ₹ 20 lakh of the deposits through bank entries. The Tribunal decided to grant 50% relief to the assessee on the remaining addition, confirming the other 50%.
The Tribunal held that taking possession of the property along with a registered sale agreement amounts to a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Transfer Act. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). While not commenting on the merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues concerning the same assessee (husband of Shri Naresh Grover) were decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench in consolidated order dated 21/03/2025. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from that decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had been granted registration under section 12AA, indicating their charitable objects and activities were genuine. Relying on a precedent from the Jaipur Bench, which was also supported by Allahabad High Court rulings, the Tribunal held that procedural defects should not be a ground for denying 80G approval when the trust's genuineness is established.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's new registration number was not available at the time of processing, the rectification application under section 154 was still pending. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the procedural breach regarding the loan was venial and not material to the trust's objects. The CIT(E) had amplified a curable defect and failed to consider the repayment of the loan and the opportunity for a reasonable hearing.
The Tribunal noted the lenient view taken towards small trusts and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the course of action by the learned CIT(E) was fallible and could not be countenanced. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided overwhelming evidence on record demonstrating that the learned CIT(E) had not considered the contents of the reply/submissions filed by the assessee on 13-14/08/2024. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee had not furnished an explanation was contrary to the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). The matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee. The learned CIT(E) was instructed to consider the contents of the reply/submissions filed by the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, if so desired by the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided the substantive issues regarding the fulfillment of conditions under section 80G(5) of the Act, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's Authorized Representative and the Departmental Representative agreed that the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit. The Tribunal further clarified that the revised monetary limit applies to all pending appeals, as per CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the ex-parte nature of the orders, felt that principles of natural justice require one opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues concerning the same assessee (husband of Shri Naresh Grover) were decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench in consolidated order dated 21/03/2025. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from that decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeals. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Third Member upheld the Judicial Member's decision, finding that the CIT(A)'s order did not violate Section 250(6) of the IT Act for not adjudicating the legal ground challenging the reassessment. It was also held that the CIT(A)'s order need not be set aside for rejecting the assessee's legal ground as general in nature.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the deduction claim solely on the ground of missing bills and vouchers was not justified, especially since the sale proceeds were utilized for construction. The AO's addition under Section 54F and the separate addition under Section 50C were also deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks registered under the Cooperative Societies Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Furthermore, following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, the Tribunal directed that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be allowed on enhanced income due to disallowances made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was primarily a passive investor and the activity of selling plots did not amount to a business activity. The conversion of land and sale of plots was considered a realization of capital investment rather than an adventure in the nature of trade.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence and explanations regarding the outstanding advances for sale, which were shown as liability for many years and were not supported by proper confirmations or details. The AO was justified in treating these outstanding advances as cessation of a trading liability under Section 41(1) of the Act.
The assessee has opted to settle disputes under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, with a liberty to file fresh appeals if the Department's decision is not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the difference of Rs. 43,78,000 related to the sale of plots to Sharmila Bhoyar was revenue for AY 2020-21 as the agreement to sell was executed and the sale consideration was received in FY 2019-20. Thus, ground no. 2 was allowed. For ground no. 3, the addition of Rs. 13,66,111 was deleted as it was a current tax and not a deduction. For ground no. 4, concerning unexplained expenditure of Rs. 7,76,408, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that a miniscule portion of commission claimed cannot be considered unexplained when reflected in the books of account.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were cryptic and that the assessee did not effectively participate. The Tribunal questioned how income already disclosed in the return could be added, leading to potential double taxation. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s action was unjustified and against natural justice. The use of an incorrect sub-section was a technical error and not a valid reason for cancelling the registration, especially when the activities were genuine and other requirements were met.
The Tribunal noted that while the lower authorities did not accept the revised Form 9A due to it being filed late and outside the prescribed online revision process, the assessee did attempt to file it before the assessment completion. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the revised Form 9A and its acceptability.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) summarily rejected the application without considering its merits. It referred to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, which states that minor defects do not invalidate actions if they conform to the Act's substance. The Tribunal opined that an inadvertent technical error should not be fatal to the registration.
The tribunal held that the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, should be excluded for limitation purposes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as per Supreme Court rulings. This exclusion made the assessee's filing of the audit report within the extended period. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order lacked specific mention of the sub-clauses of Section 270A(2) under which the penalty was levied. The Tribunal noted that the penalty for misreporting is 200% and for under-reporting is 50%, and there's no provision for a 100% penalty. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was quashed.