Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
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 rejection was based on a procedural defect and not on any deficiency in the trust's charitable activities. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal stated that once 12AA registration is granted, 80G approval should not be denied unless specific conditions under Section 80G(5) are not met, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to issue a show-cause notice before making any addition or disallowance, as per CBDT instructions and judicial precedents. The failure to do so violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s annulment of the assessment order was justified.
The Tribunal held that the late filing of Form 10B should not necessarily bar the claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had substantially complied with the time limits, and rejection on hyper-technical grounds was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a procedural defect and not on any deficiency in the trust's charitable activities. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal stated that once 12AA registration is granted, 80G approval should not be denied unless specific conditions under Section 80G(5) are not met, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal held that the interest on borrowed capital was paid by the assessee, even though the loan certificate mentioned her husband, as they jointly acquired the property. Regarding the Section 80C deduction, it was held that PF deductions are mandatory for employees and investments in LIC are also common, and the disallowance was not justified.
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 assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and to discharge the onus of proof. The purchase of medical equipment from a building material supplier, coupled with the supplier's unavailability and the lack of supporting documents like delivery challans and transport receipts, indicated bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the advance to Shri G.N. Bhattad was a capital advance, not a diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. The assessee had sufficient interest-free capital and loans to make this advance, and it was made to ensure the smooth continuation of the business.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 43 days in filing the present appeal. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to condone the previous delay of 584 days upon fresh application and adjudicate the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act were not applicable because the agreement, part payments, and possession all occurred in the financial year 2012-13, which is prior to the insertion of this section with effect from April 1, 2014. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the abnormal delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The reasons provided, such as ongoing legal cases and seizure of company assets and directors' arrests, were deemed insufficient to condone the extensive delay.
The Tribunal found that the expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer did not fall under the ambit of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an old-aged agriculturist and that the amount deposited was out of accumulated savings from agriculture income. The Tribunal also considered that the CIT(A) had already deleted a similar addition for another bank.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a portion of the interest expense, finding that the AO did not properly consider interest-free funds available to the assessee. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to provide evidence that payees discharged their tax liability.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were unilateral and the assessee was not given an opportunity to controvert them. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the valuation report and to record his objective satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that mushroom cultivation is an agricultural activity, following a Special Bench decision. Therefore, income derived from it is agricultural income and exempt from tax.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the seized documents were not found in the assessee's possession and were not signed or acknowledged by the assessee. The sale agreement and registered sale deed were for the same consideration, and the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence.