ITAT Panaji Judgments — March 2022

The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 (modifying Circular No. 3/2018), which mandates that revenue appeals before the ITAT with a tax effect less than Rs. 50,00,000 are to be treated as withdrawn, and this applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the iron ore rejection dump constituted a capital asset and not stock-in-trade. Therefore, the income from its sale should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. This rendered the penalty invalid.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circulars specify monetary limits for filing appeals before the ITAT. Since the tax effect was below the stipulated limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that co-operative banks fall under the definition of 'Co-operative Society' for Section 80P(2)(d), making the interest income eligible for deduction. It also held that interest earned on surplus funds parked in short-term deposits, which were inextricably linked to the business of providing credit facilities, was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(Appeals) failed to record their satisfaction as to why the assessee's claim that no expenditure was attributable to exempt income was not accepted. This failure to record satisfaction is a prerequisite for invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and not a co-operative bank as it does not accept deposits from the public and is not licensed by the RBI. Therefore, it is not hit by Section 80P(4) and is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 2B, only exempts travel within India. Therefore, reimbursements for foreign travel are taxable, and the bank was obligated to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 2B, only exempts travel within India. Therefore, reimbursements for foreign travel are taxable, and the bank was obligated to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the 'tax effect' was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 2B, only exempts travel within India. Therefore, reimbursements for foreign travel are taxable, and the bank was obligated to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(Appeals) failed to record their satisfaction as to why the assessee's claim that no expenditure was attributable to exempt income was not accepted. This failure to record satisfaction is a prerequisite for invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.