Loading ITAT cases…
269 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) erred in cancelling the registration of the assessee trusts. The Tribunal noted that the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Regulations, specifically clause 6.8 concerning the relationship between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, were amended by a Notification on 01.12.2016. This amendment deleted the words 'and professional association of doctors' from the code of conduct. Therefore, professional associations of doctors, like the assessee trusts, were no longer covered by these regulations prior to the alleged violations. The Tribunal found that the assessee trusts were genuinely carrying out charitable objects, and the funds received from pharmaceutical companies were applied for these objects. It was held that denial of exemptions can only be to the extent of the violation. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in 'Audyogik Shikshan Mandal' (supra) that exemption should be denied only to the extent of the violative portion. Since the trusts were genuinely carrying out charitable activities and were no longer covered by the relevant IMC regulations for the period in question, their registration could not be cancelled. The Tribunal also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in 'M/s. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT' (supra), stating it pertained to claims of expenditure by pharma companies and freebies received by doctors, not professional associations. Consequently, the PCIT's finding of cancellation was reversed, and the registrations granted under Section 12A/12AA/12AB were reinstated.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive the proceedings if the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not issued.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's business was small, he and his family had accumulated past savings. To resolve the dispute and be fair, the addition was sustained at Rs. 4,00,000/-, which included the business income declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained from the Additional Commissioner was valid as per Section 151(2) when the original assessment was under Section 143(1). Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings on this ground.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as there was no objection from the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative confirmed that the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal and its grounds were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission for the appeal to be withdrawn, with the condition that the assessee retains the liberty to revive the appeal if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax does not issue the Final Certificate under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company, due to a merger, is invalid and bad in law. Such an order cannot be rectified under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause due to the pandemic and difficulties in finding a tax consultant. The issue regarding the technical defect in CPC processing was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding 12A registration for the assessee was set aside for de novo adjudication by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the Tribunal also set aside the order under section 80G for de novo adjudication, allowing the CIT(E) to hear the assessee and examine the documents.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment under Section 147, deciding only on the merits of the addition. The Tribunal, emphasizing the CIT(A)'s duty to consider all grounds, remanded the case back for fresh adjudication of all legal and factual issues.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to revive it if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate is not issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This is to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish all requisite details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity.
The Tribunal found 'reasonable cause' for the 62-day delay and condoned it. It held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, allowing the appellant a proper opportunity to comply with requirements.
The Tribunal found that the hearings fixed by the Assessing Officer during the Covid-19 restriction period and the subsequent ex-parte order by the CIT(A)/NFAC prevented the assessee from presenting its case on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA No. 2465/PUN/2024, the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication due to lack of proper opportunity. For ITA No. 2464/PUN/2024, the application was found not barred by limitation and was restored to the CIT(E).
The tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the required details on 19.11.2024, but the CIT(E) failed to consider them before passing the rejection orders on 22.11.2024. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing them to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that interest income earned by cooperative societies from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), relying on consistent past precedents. However, the disallowance related to interest from a deposit with MSEDCL was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide any supporting judicial precedent.
The Tribunal condoned the 559-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances and the precedent set in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji. The issue of merits was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without properly considering the available material and the fact that the assessee had prior registrations and was in continuous operation. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside for denovo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without properly considering the available material and the fact that the assessee had prior registrations and was in continuous operation. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside for denovo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. Considering the tax effect was less than Rs.60 lakhs, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the required details on 19.11.2024, but the CIT(E) failed to consider them before passing the rejection orders on 22.11.2024. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing them to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 is exempt from income tax, irrespective of whether the land was held as stock-in-trade or the status of the assessee. The provisions of Section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 and CBDT Circular No. 36/2016 were found to be applicable.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a Cooperative Society from its investment with other Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The decision of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the claim.
The ITAT, adhering to the principle of judicial propriety, followed its own previous decision in the assessee's identical case for AY 2015-16. It held that the assessee trust was indeed eligible for the exclusion provided under Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, charging the anonymous donation under Section 115BBC(1) was deemed unwarranted.
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of certain companies found not comparable and remanding the issue of another company's comparability for fresh adjudication. The tribunal also dismissed grounds not adjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA No. 2465/PUN/2024, the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication due to lack of proper opportunity. For ITA No. 2464/PUN/2024, the application was found not barred by limitation and was restored to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that since the assessee has provided evidence of members depositing cash and the Assessing Officer did not conduct a thorough enquiry, the matter should be restored for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) was dismissed due to non-submission of details, which the assessee attributed to non-communication by the previous consultant. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the 559-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances and the precedent set in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji. The issue of merits was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal observed a technical glitch in the CPC's processing. It restored the issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's claim and correctly calculate the tax liability under the new income-tax regime as per Section 115BAC.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid, dismissing the assessee's legal grounds concerning the reasons recorded, sanction under Section 151, and the DIN. However, on the merits, the Tribunal found that the addition under Section 69D was not justified. The Tribunal reasoned that the statement given before the police authorities is not admissible evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The alleged Hundi and cheques were considered collateral security for property sale transactions that did not materialize. The High Court's observation granting anticipatory bail to the assessee indicated inaction by the complainant for 2.5 years after the transaction was declined, suggesting a lack of genuine dispute. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction, if any, was related to the sale of immovable properties and not a borrowing of funds against Hundi. Therefore, Section 69D was wrongly invoked. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection by the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 673 days by finding a 'reasonable cause' and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The issues on merits were remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal found it proper to restore both the issues of Section 12A registration and Section 80G approval to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details, failing which the CIT(Exemption) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to the second notice due to an employee's mistake. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of commission expenses back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidence, and the ld. CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and then decide the case in accordance with law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found it proper to restore both the issues of Section 12A registration and Section 80G approval to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details, failing which the CIT(Exemption) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal condoned the 253-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the prior decision in the assessee's own case and the reasonable cause for the delay. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to be given one final opportunity to submit requisite details regarding the source of cash deposits and other credit entries. The AO is to decide the issue afresh on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file written submissions on legal issues, leading to the dismissal of grounds 2, 3, and 5. For grounds raised on merits (1 and 4), the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G as the assessee failed to provide necessary documents to substantiate the genuineness of its activities and donations.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's counsel plea that non-compliance was due to an accountant's mistake. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), directing it to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details and decide the issue on merits, with a warning against seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, even if filed belatedly, it should be considered for allowing FTC, provided the taxes were paid abroad and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked for sums credited in the books of the assessee for the relevant previous year. Since the Rs. 10,00,000/- loan was credited in the books in FY 2011-12 and appeared as an opening balance on 01.04.2015, it was not credited in the previous year for AY 2016-17. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 68 for that assessment year.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly referencing a Bombay High Court decision on similar issues. It decided to restore the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity to the assessee to provide necessary documentation and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, stating that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to the second notice due to an employee's mistake. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.