ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order without considering the merits and in contravention of procedural requirements. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not provide reasonable opportunities for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the penalty was restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty order was also remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment of the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC considered incorrect facts and wrongly assumed the appeal was against an order under Section 272A(1)(a) instead of Section 143(3). The Tribunal also noted that the delay was not condoned and the date of service of the assessment order was not properly considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-compliance. It set aside the rejection order and granted one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities' reasoning for denial was not accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the rejection order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with two effective opportunities.

The tribunal found that the NFAC's order lacked clarity regarding the advance tax liability and did not adjudicate the appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings deserved to be restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is to be done after the quantum appeal is decided, ensuring justice for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 165-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The NFAC was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities' reasoning for denial was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was less than 5%. Following previous decisions, it ruled that no addition was warranted in such cases.

The Tribunal held that Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, without a saving clause, implying it never existed. Therefore, the reference to the TPO and the subsequent order were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities' reasoning for denial was not accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the NFAC's order. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC to provide the assessee with two effective opportunities to present supporting material and decide the issues afresh on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection and cancellation of provisional registration. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, with the assessee to be given three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. It held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reasons for delay and decided the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that filing a return in response to a notice under Section 148 with a higher income than originally declared constitutes filing inaccurate particulars or misreporting of income. The penalty levied by the lower authorities was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service under Section 282(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) is also not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order erroneous regarding the assessee's share and the disallowance of the payment to the consenting party. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. It held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the deposits were reinvestments of matured old deposits and that the trust was registered under Section 12AA. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that filing a return in response to a notice under Section 148 with a higher income than originally declared constitutes filing inaccurate particulars or misreporting of income. The penalty levied by the lower authorities was confirmed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order erroneous regarding the assessee's share and the disallowance of the payment to the consenting party. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that filing a return in response to a notice under Section 148 with a higher income than originally declared constitutes filing inaccurate particulars or misreporting of income. The penalty levied by the lower authorities was confirmed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, as the AO had not responded to previous reminders. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue after considering the report and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal held that contributions from members to a common pool are not taxable due to the principle of mutuality. It also held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer is responsible for filing and proving all relevant facts.

The Tribunal held that transactions between two sister concerns, constituted by the same partners, are essentially transactions between the partners themselves. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS, which prohibit cash transactions above a certain limit, were not applicable in this case.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with the notices and the consequent rejection of the registration application. However, to allow for adjudication on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in violation of Section 149(1)(b) as the assessing authority failed to record satisfaction regarding the escaped income meeting the pecuniary threshold. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice was deemed time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition made (Rs. 13,03,650) was less than the prescribed threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs for initiating such proceedings under Section 149(1)(b) as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. The Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank continues to be a cooperative society registered under the relevant acts. Therefore, interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer's view was considered plausible, and the revisional order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)/NFAC's dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was contrary to settled law.

The Tribunal held that quantification of expenditure by the prescribed authority is a mandatory condition for claiming Section 35(2AB) deduction from July 1, 2016. The assessee's adjournment request was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO had become academic due to a subsequent order. Furthermore, as the cooperative society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), any addition would also qualify for this deduction.

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-service of proper notice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims regarding the source of cash deposits. The reopening of assessment and the additions made were deemed valid.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 57(iii) and the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims regarding the source of cash deposits. The reopening of assessment and the additions made were deemed valid.

The tribunal held that interest income on land acquisition compensation is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, the addition of Rs. 14,84,463/- as interest income was sustained as the sister had not offered it in her return.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It also restored the issue of deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal further restored the issue of deduction under Section 35(2AB) to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that notices went to spam, preventing them from appearing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits, contrary to Section 250(6).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to restore the substantive grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the NFAC proceeded ex-parte without considering the assessee's timely filed submissions, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.