Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates had been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court in its own case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the issue had attained finality.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for AY 2018-19 due to delay and lack of prosecution, and for both AYs, had passed orders in concurrence with the AO without independently examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders violated Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matters to his file. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay for AY 2018-19 and adjudicate the issues afresh on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and submitting necessary documents. The assessee was cautioned to provide support without seeking adjournments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to a reasonable and sufficient cause, namely the critical medical condition of the trustee's mother, evidenced by medical reports. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) issued only two notices within a week and proceeded ex-parte. While acknowledging that an appeal can be decided ex-parte for non-prosecution, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adhered to Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was found to be in concurrence with the Ld. AO's order without adjudicating on the merits of the case, thus violating Section 250(6). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to provide requisite support and documents without seeking adjournment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed him to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the sale of sugar at concessional rates to members is a practice regulated by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and a circular issued by the Sugar Commissioner. Given the complexity and the need for verification of the actual sale practices and compliance with regulations, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that there was an apparent mistake in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had mistakenly dismissed the assessee's appeal by considering the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSVS) Scheme settlement. Upon perusal of Form No. 3, it was evident that the VSVS settlement was for Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) was against the addition made in the assessment order. The Ld.DR accepted these facts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 29/04/2024 for de-novo adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting the absence of objection from the Department's representative. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Considering that the CIT(A)/NFAC issued notices back-to-back and the assessee remained absent, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for AY 2018-19 due to delay and decided both appeals on merits without proper adjudication. While the CIT(A) can decide ex-parte, he must adhere to Section 250(6) of the Act by stating points for determination, the decision, and reasons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders in concurrence with the AO without independently examining the merits, thus violating Section 250(6). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both AYs. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay for AY 2018-19 and adjudicate the issues afresh on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is required to submit necessary documents without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an appropriate order if the assessee fails to comply. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the sale of sugar at concessional rates to members is a practice regulated by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and a circular issued by the Sugar Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fully considered these regulations and the specific circumstances of the sale.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the first appellate order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the fact that the assessee's parents were murdered and the assessee might not be in a sound state of mind, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as there was no objection from the DR. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's critical illness was a sufficient reason to condone the delay. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for denovo adjudication on merits, with directions for the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition appeal for the same assessment year was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC, the penalty, being consequential, should also be decided afresh after the quantum appeal is disposed of.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order dated 28.09.2021 had referred to a consolidated ITAT order in ITA No.1210/PUN/1997 & Ors. which set aside the issue of sale of sugar at a concessional rate to the AO for denovo adjudication. The AO had then made the addition. The assessee, however, argued that its case for AY 2006-07 was not part of the consolidated order and that the issue had attained finality due to the Bombay High Court's decision in its own case. The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order dated 28.09.2021 was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 262 of the Act, and the AO had indeed mentioned that the issue was set aside by the ITAT for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the addition. The Revenue appealed this deletion. The Tribunal observed that the AO had made the addition based on the ITAT's direction for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the assessee's contention regarding the Bombay High Court's order or the exclusion from the consolidated ITAT order in its findings. However, by allowing the Revenue's appeal, it implicitly agreed with the Revenue's stance that the issue should be remanded for denovo adjudication, as indicated by the AO's reference to the ITAT's earlier order.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address specific questions regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates, such as the number of members, cane supplied, and the exact concessional rate versus levy sugar rate. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the directions issued by the Sugar Commissioner.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal due to an incorrect jurisdiction and that the Department had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the sale of sugar at concessional rates to members is a practice regulated by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and a circular issued by the Sugar Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not fully considered these regulations and the specific circumstances of the sale.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions and the creditworthiness of the lenders even during the Section 263 proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the AO, CPC made an addition of Rs. 10,26,76,090/- under Section 143(1) on account of ICDS adjustments and deviation in the method of valuation of stock. It was an admitted fact that the assessee furnished an audit report in Form 3CD showing ICDS adjustments at ZERO. The assessee also provided detailed submissions and an auditor's certificate confirming a NIL net impact on profit and loss. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) had observed that the addition was made on account of the increase in profit from the inclusion of GST, which the assessee claimed was already considered. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) held no addition was called for as there was no net profit accrued from ICDS adjustments. However, considering the Revenue's grievance that the deletion was made without affording the AO an opportunity for verification, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim and decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the Departmental Representative had no objection. The CIT(A)'s findings were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 145(3) by rejecting the assessee's books of account and estimating the net profit at 8% of gross receipts due to the non-filing of required documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld this action for similar reasons. The Tribunal noted the admitted lack of proper books of account and supporting documentary evidence on the part of the assessee before the lower authorities. However, the assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to submit the required details. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce proper books of account and supporting documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments, failing which the AO was at liberty to pass an appropriate order. The issue of whether the rejection of books of account and the estimation of profit were justified was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Assessing Officer made no addition after verification of issues, rendering the appeal academic. The appeal was dismissed as 'Withdrawn'.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the Departmental Representative had no objection. The CIT(A)'s findings were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the Departmental Representative had no objection. The CIT(A)'s findings were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's plea of ignorance and request for an opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as no objections were raised by the Revenue. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies and interest earned from deposits with them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case and submit necessary documents for adjudication afresh.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected, the assessee can move a miscellaneous application for recalling the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the AO made two additions: disallowance of Section 80P deduction and addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) had erroneously decided the Section 68 issue as allowable under Section 80P. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and submit necessary documents. The CIT(E) is to decide the application afresh after considering all evidence and providing due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the solitary issue was whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned on deposits made with other Co-operative Banks. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the whole of the income derived by a Co-operative Society by way of interest from its investment with any other Co-operative Society is eligible for deduction. The Tribunal observed that while the section refers to 'Co-operative Society', it has been consistently held by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal that Co-operative Banks are essentially Co-operative Societies licensed to do banking business. Following its own precedents in the cases of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakar Pat Sahakar Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1365/PUN/2023) and Ugar Sugar Works Kamgar & Dr. Shirgaokar Shaikshanik Trust Nokar Co-op Credit Society vs. ITO (ITA No. 84/PAN/2018), the Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the findings of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the disallowances of Rs. 70,71,431 for AY 2018-19 and Rs. 11,54,341 for AY 2020-21 were deleted. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were not disputed, and admittedly, some payments were made within the due date as per the PF Act, but these were not verified by the AO or CIT(A). The assessee had filed copies of PF challans and a detailed chart supporting its claim, which remained unverified. The CIT(A) had disallowed the entire amount of Rs.1,89,01,924/- under Section 36(1)(va), treating employer's contribution and administrative charges as employees' contribution. Considering the totality of the facts, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim in light of the documents already on record and any other documents that may be called for during fresh proceedings, and decide the claim afresh in accordance with the facts and law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the bank account was in the assessee's name, but the deposits were claimed to be business proceeds of the mother's hotel. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not consider withdrawals and that the CIT(A) did not thoroughly examine the details. The matter was restored to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging it was not intentional. It then set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication in light of a previous ITAT decision that granted Section 12AB registration.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed incorrectly, quoting the assessment year instead of individual quarters and that a notice u/s.226(3) was mistakenly uploaded instead of an appeal against the order u/s.200A. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as 'Infructuous'.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did comply with notices, the CIT did not provide a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to explain its case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed incorrectly, quoting the assessment year instead of individual quarters and that a notice u/s.226(3) was mistakenly uploaded instead of an appeal against the order u/s.200A. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as 'Infructuous'.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay, considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The Tribunal also noted that documents submitted to the AO were considered additional evidence by the CIT(A)/NFAC without proper application of rules. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.