ITAT Patna Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits and without substantiating that the notice of hearing was served on the assessee. The principle of 'audi alteram partem' was invoked.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice and service to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, both appeals were restored to the respective authorities for re-examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, both appeals were restored to the respective authorities for re-examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits and without substantiating service of notice on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that a direct appeal against the order of the Director of Income Tax (I&CI) levying penalty under Section 271FA is not maintainable before the ITAT. The appeal should have first been filed before the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notices. The principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was emphasized.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits and without confirming service of notice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT is only required to examine whether the objects of the trust are charitable in nature, not the genuineness of its activities. The CIT should not have refused registration solely on the ground that activities had not commenced.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable before the ITAT directly. The reasoning was based on the consistent view taken by various benches of the Tribunal, including the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Officer, Kumarsain Vs DIT(CIB) and the ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Sub Registrar, Post Padampur Vs DIT(I&CI). These decisions, supported by CBDT clarifications regarding Section 246A(1)(q), established that an appeal against an order levying penalty under Section 271FA must first be filed before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found that the assessee should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) before approaching the ITAT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that penalties for assessment years 1992-93 and 1999-2000 were barred by limitation under Section 275(1). For assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal directed the deletion of penalty as the quantum proceedings were set aside for fresh adjudication and similar penalties in other years were deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalties for assessment years 1992-93 and 1999-2000 were barred by limitation under Section 275(1). For assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal directed the deletion of penalty as the quantum proceedings were set aside for fresh adjudication and similar penalties in other years were deleted.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that employee contributions to provident fund are income under Section 2(24)(x) if unpaid by the due date, but entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the return filing date. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and without clear evidence of proper service of hearing notices. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalties for assessment years 1992-93 and 1999-2000 were barred by limitation under Section 275(1). For assessment year 2002-03, the Tribunal directed the deletion of penalty as the quantum proceedings were set aside for fresh adjudication and similar penalties in other years were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be condemned unheard and set aside the ex-parte orders. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that employee contributions to provident fund are income under Section 2(24)(x) if unpaid by the due date, but entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the return filing date. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be condemned unheard and set aside the ex-parte orders. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(Exemptions) also failed to provide material to substantiate the claim of non-genuine activities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to support the rejection. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that payments made via bearer cheques, if credited to the recipient's bank account, are not violative of Section 40A(3) as they are made through banking channels. For Section 40(a)(ia), if the recipient has shown the income and paid taxes, no disallowance should be made. The matter was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this application.

The Tribunal held that the exact nature of the payments had not been examined by the lower authorities. It directed the AO to examine if the payments were in the nature of professional charges under Section 194J and if they exceeded the prescribed limit for TDS deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to substantiate the rejection. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to decide afresh after considering evidence that the deductees had already paid the tax. The AO was also directed to consider relevant High Court judgments regarding interest levy when tax has been paid by the deductee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had accepted the assessee's books of accounts and trading results in the original assessment and did not doubt them in the subsequent assessment. The addition of trade creditors was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) mentioned issuing notices, there was no proof of service on the assessee. Adhering to the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side), the Tribunal set aside the order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to substantiate the claim that the trust's activities were not genuine or aligned with its objects. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.