Loading ITAT cases…
199 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should also follow suit and be restored back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. This decision was made in light of the related quantum appeal being sent back for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's nor the revenue's stand was fully acceptable due to a lack of comparable instances. Consequently, the gross profit was re-estimated at 17.5%.
The Tribunal restored the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's claim that recipients were assessed. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case regarding the PSI scheme subsidy. It held that the subsidy was capital in nature and should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case regarding the PSI scheme subsidy. It held that the subsidy was capital in nature and should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 727 days in filing the lower appeal. The matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order confirming the penalty was cryptic and unreasoned, failing to deal with the facts and applicable law. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was also condoned without proper reasoning.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, stating that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits, even if the assessee fails to prosecute it. Dismissing an appeal solely for non-prosecution is contrary to established legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Therefore, the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal also restored the current appeal's issue to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cause of action for challenging the levy of interest under section 234C arose in the proceedings under section 143(1), not in the subsequent proceedings under section 143(3). Therefore, the appeal against the section 143(3) order, which merely confirmed the earlier levy, was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on investments made with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had agricultural and business activities, they failed to satisfactorily prove the source of all receipts. Therefore, a lump sum addition was made for each head, granting partial relief.
The tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 7 lakhs, reducing the original addition of Rs. 12,00,468/-. This decision was made with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80P for interest income earned by a co-operative society from banks is a settled matter in favour of the assessee, based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other co-ordinate bench rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed within the extended time limit of 30.09.2021 as per CBDT notification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding that the order was time-barred was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank continues to be a cooperative society, and interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also noted that interest income from nationalized banks also qualifies for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not reconcile the corresponding business turnover in the lower proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening and reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening/re-assessment.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case regarding the PSI scheme subsidy. It held that the subsidy was capital in nature and should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's claim that recipients were assessed. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed the assessee one more opportunity to file relevant details before the NFAC. The NFAC is to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements, particularly the first proviso to Section 147. The addition was also found to be erroneous on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory, and FTC cannot be denied solely on this ground. The issue was restored to the AO for verification and consequential allowance of FTC.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. It held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only be computed based on investments that yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal acknowledged that cash sales in an unorganized agricultural business could lead to cash accumulation. However, due to the lack of complete reconciliation of stock details, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3,60,500/- was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had allowed the quantum appeal, deleting the addition. Therefore, in light of the deletion of the addition, the penalty order needed reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the primary reason for reopening, the cash deposit, was not added to the assessee's income. Therefore, the entire reassessment was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal found the distinction made by the AO without justification and, in the interest of justice, reduced the addition to Rs. 2,00,000. The assessee received relief of Rs. 2,04,500.
The tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. The tribunal did not express any opinion on the status of the legal representative.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to medical exigencies of a key personnel. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The interest income earned from investments made with other co-operative banks/societies, made under statutory restrictions, qualifies for deduction.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person are invalid. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made merely due to the lapse of time or in the absence of actual cessation of liability in the assessee's books. The Tribunal found no specific material in the assessee's books to support the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for 50% depreciation was justified. The 'put to use' condition is met if the asset is insured and ready for use, even if formal registration is pending. The reopening of assessment was also found to be without merit.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could adequately prove their claimed agricultural expenditure nor the lower appellate authority could justify the 35% re-computation. Therefore, the addition was re-computed to a lump sum of Rs. 6 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from members, nominal members, and deposits with banks/cooperative societies qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It further held that any disallowances made under Section 40A(ia) would increase the business profits, which are also eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was in light of a CBDT circular allowing fresh applications and to save judicial time.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. This was based on a recent CBDT circular allowing fresh applications and the assessee's request to save judicial time.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of protective addition afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order by the Nagpur bench had already restored the issue of Section 12AB and 80G(5) registrations back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the current appeal was considered a duplicate.
The tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act is a complete code for processing TDS statements and does not grant jurisdiction to change the head of TDS applicability from salary to commission. Therefore, the CPC's intimation and NFAC's action were erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. It also found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for compliance and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was permitted because the assessee is assessed in Thane, which is under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench, and a similar issue had been remanded by the Mumbai Bench.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same assessment year had been partly allowed and remanded. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, in the interest of justice.