Loading ITAT cases…
217 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the case with requisite details. The assessee is directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered an explanation regarding the source of the cash and gold, even if not fully satisfactory to the AO. Relying on previous judgments, they found that the provisions of Section 69A were not attracted when an explanation, however imperfect, was provided and no contrary material was brought on record.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had paid sufficient advance tax and TDS, and the due date for filing the return had not expired at the time of the survey, it could not be said that the assessee would not have disclosed the income had the survey not occurred. The returned income was also accepted without variation.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish explanations for the discrepancies. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide on merits. The assessee was directed to submit details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,52,06,394/- (a portion of the disputed amount) had already been taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother. Therefore, adding it again to the assessee's income would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the rental income was offered to tax and explained the source of cash deposit from business turnover. The Tribunal also found the source of time deposit in bank to be explained from business turnover. Therefore, a part of the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the error in selecting the sub-clause was a technical and curable defect. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provision for overdue interest made by the assessee, a Co-operative Bank, is allowable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda, as well as the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the assessee's own case. These decisions, according to the Tribunal, establish that directions from the Reserve Bank of India regarding prudential norms are applicable to co-operative banks and have an overriding effect. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the impugned issue and accordingly dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue. The ratio decidendi is that provisions for overdue interest made by co-operative banks in accordance with RBI prudential norms are allowable deductions, as such norms have an overriding effect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT's rejection was based on insufficient details and lack of opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that an opportunity for further compliance should have been given, especially since only five days were allowed for the second notice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the income was already taxed in the hands of Mr. Ajit Satam, the assessee's expenditure should not be disallowed, as income cannot be taxed twice. The disallowance of provision for pending expenses was also deemed uncalled for.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to identify the specific clauses under Section 270A(9) in the penalty order and notice, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Additionally, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without adjudicating the merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, considering that substantive additions in other similar cases were deleted and the current additions were made on a protective basis. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration retrospectively from April 1, 2008, and also erred in cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) without placing material evidence to indicate that the assessee society was not running for its charitable objects or that its activities were not genuine. The Tribunal noted that issues arising from loose papers alleging misappropriation or ambiguity in expenses can be addressed during assessment proceedings, with additions made to income if necessary. However, the remaining income should not be affected by denying the benefit of exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were genuine and satisfied the trust's objects. Therefore, even if additions were made regarding alleged cash receipts for stipend, doctors' salary, or capitation fees, the benefit of Section 11 could only be denied to the extent of such discrepancies, but the registration itself should not be cancelled. The Tribunal followed the decision in Shri Jairam Education Society Vs. PCIT, holding that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration solely on the ground of alleged documents when the trust's activities were genuine. The finding of the PCIT was set aside, and grounds of appeal 5 to 9 were allowed. The Tribunal also held that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration granted under Section 12A on February 16, 2001, and under Section 12A read with Section 12AB for the period from April 1, 2021, onwards. The registration stands restored. Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 were dismissed, while grounds 3 to 10 were allowed. Ground 10 was allowed because the 'specified violation' under Explanation clause (f) to Section 12AB(4) was based on documents from FY 2019-20 to 2021-22, prior to the amendment effective April 1, 2022.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT's observation regarding related parties was based on mere surname similarity, and the assessee has now provided a registered tenancy agreement. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provision for overdue interest on NPA accounts is allowable as a deduction. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decisions in CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda, which were followed. The Court in these cases held that co-operative banks are governed by RBI directions, and the prudential norms issued by the RBI have an overriding effect. The Supreme Court's observations in UCO Bank's case were also cited, emphasizing that circulars under Section 119 are binding and can ensure fair enforcement of fiscal laws. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's ground of appeal. The appeals in ITA Nos. 800/PUN/2024 were dismissed, and appeals in ITA Nos. 801 & 802/PUN/2024 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been provided, especially given the short notice period. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed on a dead assessee, rendering it non-est. The order was set aside with a direction to decide the appeal after bringing on record the legal heirs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. It held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit credible evidence to prove the genuineness of its charitable activities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT's rejection was based on insufficient details and lack of opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, considering that substantive additions in other similar cases were deleted and the current additions were made on a protective basis. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit and merely upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case and consider additional evidences.
The Tribunal held that the provision for overdue interest on NPAs is allowable as a deduction. The reasoning was based on the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and other High Court decisions like CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda and The Central Bank of India Vs. DCIT. These judgments established that prudential norms issued by the RBI are binding and that interest on NPAs, when not recognized as income until realized, is in accordance with accounting practices and beneficial circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. The issue regarding the provision for overdue interest was decided in favor of the assessee. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed for AY 2013-14 and partly allowed for statistical purposes for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, implying the core issue was resolved for all years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. The penalty was deleted because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the relevant limb or clause of Section 270A in the penalty notice, which is crucial for valid penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice u/s 270A did not specify the relevant clauses of sub-section (9), and the penalty order only mentioned Section 270A(8) without the relevant clause. Citing previous decisions with identical facts, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's reasons for the delay and the submission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the issues to the ld. CIT(A), directing them to provide a reasonable opportunity, consider the additional evidences, and pass a speaking order under Section 250(6), with the option to call for a Remand Report.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E), granting one final opportunity to the assessee to submit its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek further adjournments.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's selection of the incorrect sub-section was a bona fide mistake and, given the assessee's existing registrations under Section 12A, it deserved an opportunity to rectify the error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to file a correct application under Section 80G(iii).
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a curable defect (typographical error in section code) and not on merits. Following precedent and a recent CBDT circular, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the facts and interest of justice, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case with evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified because the notice to show cause did not specify the relevant clauses of sub-section (9) of Section 270A. Furthermore, the assessee acted diligently upon discovering the fraud, rectified the return, and paid the due tax.
The Tribunal held that the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire amount. For unexplained money, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion unjustified and modified the order to include the profit element.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for adjudication. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's reasons for the delay and the submission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the issues to the ld. CIT(A), directing them to provide a reasonable opportunity, consider the additional evidences, and pass a speaking order under Section 250(6), with the option to call for a Remand Report.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the non-compliance to be unintentional. It restored the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly claimed the unutilized input tax credit (VAT paid in earlier years) as a business expense, and the GST write-off was also a valid claim. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was given multiple opportunities but failed to respond to hearing notices. However, considering the recent launch of Faceless Proceedings and potential lack of familiarity with the technical aspects, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for bogus purchases, considering the documentary evidence and supplier compliance. However, for the cash transactions, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, allowing a part of the addition, considering the ambiguity in the seized documents and the retraction of the statement.
The Tribunal held that if a part of the consideration was received by account payee cheque or other prescribed electronic modes on or before the date of agreement, and the sale deeds were executed based on the agreement value, then no addition is called for under Section 43CA(3) and (4).
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without making necessary inquiries into a suspicious transaction involving payments routed through a third party to an employee. The CIT's action under Section 263 was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 for AY 2011-12 was not in accordance with law. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3), and the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Furthermore, the reopening was initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Citing the proviso to Section 147 and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej Projects Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, the Tribunal concluded that the reopening was merely based on a change of opinion and was therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. As the assessee succeeded on this legal ground, other grounds challenging additions on merit were not adjudicated. The appeal in ITA No. 1178/PUN/2023 was allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been provided. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been provided. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the assessee had failed to disclose material facts during the original assessment. The AO had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment based on search findings and the assessee's admission.