Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it deserved another opportunity to explain its charitable objects and activities. Therefore, both appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that while it had responded to the first notice, it failed to comply with the subsequent notice dated 22.11.2024, leading to the rejection of its application under section 12AA/12AB. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to explain its objects and activities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the application afresh, with a direction to allow a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to be more vigilant in future compliance. Consequently, ITA No. 442/2025 was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding ITA No. 441/2025, concerning the section 80G(5) approval, the Tribunal noted that since the section 12AB application was restored, this application was also restored to the file of the CIT(E) to be considered after the order was passed on the section 12AB application. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural lapse, if addressed with a commitment to future compliance and a request for a fair hearing, can warrant a restoration of the application to the lower authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the peculiar facts and the principle of substantial justice over technicality. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made based on information from an insight portal and the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144, with the appeal dismissed for want of submission.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the delay was covered by Supreme Court directives issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also emphasized the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a valid provisional registration under Section 12AB. The AR of the assessee undertook to furnish complete details of activities. The Tribunal also found the delay in filing the appeal to be bonafide due to personal reasons of the counsel.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity, considering the short notice period for the second compliance. It restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications afresh, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing any orders. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a valid provisional registration under Section 12AB. The AR of the assessee undertook to furnish complete details of activities. The Tribunal also found the delay in filing the appeal to be bonafide due to personal reasons of the counsel.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity, considering the short notice period for the second compliance. It restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications afresh, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing any orders. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This implies that the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment, thereby upholding the assessee's right to adequate opportunity during assessment proceedings.
The CIT(A) held that the denial of exemption was based on the Form 10B not being filed within the prescribed time limit. However, the CIT(Exemption) had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. Therefore, the addition made under section 143(1) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that it was not intentional. The application for registration under section 80G was rejected for want of details of activities. The assessee has undertaken to furnish these details. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Given that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's contentions and passed a fresh assessment order without any variation, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal, noting no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the late fee under Section 234E was levied based on an amendment to Section 200A(1) which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be charged for TDS deducted prior to this date. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and a High Court ruling that confirmed the prospective nature of the amendment.
The Tribunal noted the non-appearance before the lower authorities and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the order due to non-response without a speaking order. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3), ruling that cash payments for capital assets like land, not claimed as P&L expenditure, do not fall under Section 40A(3). The ground regarding agricultural income was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. For the stamp duty valuation issue in AY 2014-15, an addition of Rs. 35,000/- was deleted applying retrospective benefits of a 10% tolerance limit under Section 50C(1), and the matter of Rs. 3,75,000/- was allowed to be referred to the District Valuation Officer.
The Tribunal, acknowledging that the assessee is a charitable trust subsisting on donations and grants, and that the entire cash deposit was added without considering expenses, found merit in the assessee's plea for a fair chance to present its case. The Tribunal noted that only income is supposed to be taxed and suggested that expenses incurred for administering the trust might be considered as deductions. The Id. AR submitted that the matter could be restored to the Assessing Officer for filing necessary evidence. The Id. DR protested, arguing for outright dismissal due to non-cooperation. However, the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, deemed it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to ensure a fair chance for the assessee to represent its contentions and to prevent frivolous demands. Both parties agreed to this course of action. For AY 2017-18, the facts were identical, and a similar direction was extended. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a technical mistake in applying under section 10(23C)(ii) instead of section 10(23C)(iii). The Tribunal relied on the settled legal proposition and the preponderant judicial view that such a mistake is curable. Citing its own decision in Janardhan Swami Yogabhyasi Mandal vs. ITO (ITA No. 608/Nag/2024), the Tribunal held that the same purpose would be served by adjudicating the application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the subsequent application of the assessee under section 10(23C)(iii) or call for a fresh application. The issue regarding cancellation of provisional registration under section 80G(5) was implicitly addressed by the remand, as the primary issue was the incorrect filing under section 10(23C).
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and other Tribunal precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption under Section 54F for the investment in two adjoining flats. This is because they were converted and used as a single integrated residential unit, a fact supported by certificates from the builder and architect.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3), ruling that cash payments for capital assets like land, not claimed as P&L expenditure, do not fall under Section 40A(3). The ground regarding agricultural income was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. For the stamp duty valuation issue in AY 2014-15, an addition of Rs. 35,000/- was deleted applying retrospective benefits of a 10% tolerance limit under Section 50C(1), and the matter of Rs. 3,75,000/- was allowed to be referred to the District Valuation Officer.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under section 263 were initiated based on an audit objection and a proposal from the AO, not on the independent application of mind by the PCIT. The Tribunal also found that the AO had made reasonable inquiries and taken a plausible view on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the share transactions by providing evidence like contract notes and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that there were no allegations against the share broker for price manipulation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) in their application for registration. This was considered a technical mistake, and reliance was placed on a previous ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be neither intentional nor malafide. The Tribunal restored the application under Section 12AB to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, as the initial rejection was based on a minor inadvertent error in selecting the sub-clause. The appeal under Section 80G(5) was also restored as it was consequential.
The Tribunal, acknowledging that the assessee is a charitable trust subsisting on donations and grants, and that the entire cash deposit was added without considering expenses, found merit in the assessee's plea for a fair chance to present its case. The Tribunal noted that only income is supposed to be taxed and suggested that expenses incurred for administering the trust might be considered as deductions. The Id. AR submitted that the matter could be restored to the Assessing Officer for filing necessary evidence. The Id. DR protested, arguing for outright dismissal due to non-cooperation. However, the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, deemed it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to ensure a fair chance for the assessee to represent its contentions and to prevent frivolous demands. Both parties agreed to this course of action. For AY 2017-18, the facts were identical, and a similar direction was extended. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and other Tribunal precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption under Section 54F for the investment in two adjoining flats. This is because they were converted and used as a single integrated residential unit, a fact supported by certificates from the builder and architect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the application was rejected for want of submissions ex-parte and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee invited attention to page 68 of the Paper Book, which indicated that an investment was made in AY 2013-14, leading to the deletion of the investment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Regarding the investment in property amounting to Rs. 40,95,000/-, the Tribunal observed that AIR information indicated a property purchase on 27.08.2012 for Rs. 40,95,000/-. The assessee had stated that she had not purchased any immovable property during FY 2012-13. The AR submitted that the sale deed was for Rs. 35,00,000/-, a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- was availed, and the balance Rs. 15,00,000/- could be ascribed to past savings, which was considered a reasonable explanation. The Senior Departmental Representative failed to controvert this documentary evidence, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee had successfully dislodged the basis for the addition of Rs. 40,95,000/-. The AR also fairly submitted that other technical grounds were not pressed as relief was obtained on merits. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity. It restored both applications to the CIT(E) for re-consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity. The 80G(5) approval application is to be considered after the order on the 12AA/12AB registration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it had filed a reply to a show-cause notice on 05.11.2024, although it failed to comply with a subsequent notice dated 02.01.2025, leading to the rejection of its application under section 12AA/12AB. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to explain its objects and activities for seeking registration. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(E) to re-consider the application afresh, with a direction to allow a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing an order. For ITA No. 199/Nag/2025, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding ITA No. 200/Nag/2025, concerning the section 80G(5) approval, the Tribunal noted that since the section 12AB application was restored, this application was also restored to the CIT(E) to be considered after the order was passed on the section 12AB application. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. While acknowledging a potential mistake, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of subsequent tax payment, in line with the spirit of section 43B.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee held valid registration under Section 12AB and fulfilled all five conditions prescribed under Section 80G(5). Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that once a trust holds valid registration under Section 12A/12AA/12AB and it has not been cancelled, a further inquiry into the genuineness of its activities or charitable purpose cannot be made at the stage of granting 80G approval. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the approval.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest earned on deposits with nationalized banks and cooperative banks. The denial of this deduction by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was partly due to the assessee not being tech-savvy and receiving the intimation via email. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when dealing with delay, especially when the delay is not wilful.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest earned on deposits with nationalized and cooperative banks. The interest income is considered part of the society's operational activities.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because their application for registration under section 12AB was pending, which is a condition precedent for section 80G(5) approval. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, holding that when a loan is received and repaid through banking channels within the same financial year, and the identity of the lender is established, Section 68 cannot be invoked. The Tribunal distinguished the revenue's cited case as not applicable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the tax liability was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue raised no objection but sought liberty to move an appropriate application if the settlement was found to be not final later. The Tribunal considered the submissions and allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's no objection. It was noted that the matter had been settled under the DTVSV scheme.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's no objection. It was noted that the matter had been settled under the DTVSV scheme.
The Tribunal held that claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are extinguished. Since the Income Tax Department failed to submit its claim, the existing tax demand was considered abated.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Since the Income Tax Department did not file a claim, the tax liabilities for the assessment years in question stood abated.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and the contents of Form-4. It was held that since the assessee has availed the benefit of the DTVSV-24 scheme and Form-4 was issued, the appeal is infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had no taxable income and therefore no obligation to pay advance tax. Relying on decisions from coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that the Id. CIT(A)'s order was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if the tax effect was later found to be higher or if an exception clause applied.
The Tribunal restored grounds related to cash deposits and cash found in hand to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing them for statistical purposes. Grounds related to standard deduction on rental income, interest, and salary were also restored. General grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if the tax effect was later found to be higher or if an exception clause applied.
The Tribunal held that the rent received by the assessee from her son was reasonable and at a fair market rate, reversing the AO's addition. The Tribunal also found that the salary paid to the son was for business purposes and allowed the expense, setting aside the disallowance made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of account were audited and supported by vouchers. The capital account showed a substantial opening balance, and there were consistent withdrawals by the proprietor. The gross turnover and gross profit had significantly increased, with a majority of sales being in cash, which was not disputed by the revenue. The Tribunal found that the cash withdrawn was utilized for the deposit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all possible documents, including banking proofs, invoices with VAT details, and lorry registration numbers. It noted that the Revenue had no independent evidence against the purchases other than old Sales Tax data and that burdening the assessee to compel vendors to appear after 15 years was unreasonable. As the assessee's books were not rejected and other sales/purchases were accepted, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.