Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 12A(2) of the Act, particularly the proviso, should be interpreted liberally to give effect to the legislative intent of preventing genuine hardship. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA on 02.12.2016, and the impugned orders were passed subsequently. While the proviso requires the objects and activities of the trust to remain the same for the preceding assessment years, the lower authorities had not examined this aspect. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh re-examination. The AO is directed to specifically consider the objects and nature of activities of the assessee in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and allow the claim as per facts and law, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to file relevant documentary evidence. The common grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly the proviso, should be interpreted liberally and retrospectively to give effect to the legislative intention of preventing hardship in genuine cases. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA on 02.12.2016, and the assessment orders were passed subsequently. While the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not examined whether the objects and activities of the trust remained the same for the assessment years in question after obtaining registration. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for re-examination. The AO is directed to re-examine the assessee's claim, specifically considering the objects and nature of activities in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, and allow the claim as per facts and law after providing an opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents. The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from cooperative and nationalized banks. The Tribunal followed judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, stating that the character of income does not change.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions. The PCIT's finding that the AO had not asked specific questions was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that several High Courts and the Supreme Court have consistently held that interest income earned by co-operative societies from their surplus funds invested in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, provided the society itself is eligible for such deduction. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not maintainable as there were two possible views, and the AO had taken a plausible one.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The character of the income does not change, and it is attributable to the society's main business of providing credit facilities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without proper verification and without considering relevant Supreme Court judgments regarding the allowability of deduction on interest income from surplus funds.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits in nationalized and cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and to give the assessee a fair opportunity, set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce evidence and the CIT(A) was asked to call for a remand report if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had indeed not adjudicated the said ground. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for the limited purpose of adjudicating Ground No.4.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was given opportunities, considering the transition to electronic notices via the ITBA portal, the assessee deserves another chance to present its case. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The consistent view of the Tribunal is that cooperative banks are fundamentally cooperative societies.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA on 22.01.2018. Relying on the proviso to Section 12A, it held that the benefit of registration could apply to preceding assessment years for which proceedings were pending. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the activities and objects of the trust for the year in appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from cooperative banks is no longer res integra, as numerous decisions consistently support such deductions. The Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took a plausible view after considering the assessee's reply and relevant case laws. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a change in management and retired trustee as a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report is directory in nature and substantial compliance is sufficient. Since the return was filed within the time allowed for a belated return and the audit report was available, exemption under Section 11 should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to pass a speaking order even in ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue is no longer res integra, citing numerous decisions that consistently allow deduction of interest income earned from cooperative banks under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal noted that PDCC is registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and is a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the issue of 12A/12AB registration was set aside for denovo adjudication by the CIT(E), the Tribunal also set aside the order u/s.80G(5) to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 647 days, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 222 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for admitting additional evidence and re-adjudicating the issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the AO issued only one notice u/s 148 and did not issue a fresh notice when the reason for reopening (cash deposit) was found to be explained. Further, Section 80A(5) is not applicable when no return of income is filed. Therefore, the denial of deduction u/s 80P was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the source of the alleged cash deposit by showing that withdrawals from the bank account were used for business purposes, and the cash in hand was sufficient to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities. While the grounds of appeal argued for deletion of the addition and re-computation of income by considering bank statements and cash withdrawals, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by considering the COVID-19 pandemic period and the Supreme Court's decision on extending limitation. It also noted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not responding to notices. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity by remitting the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the legal ground regarding the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN), finding it was generated and communicated. However, the grounds related to the addition were allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while an older withdrawal could not be verified, subsequent withdrawals were reflected in the bank statements. Considering the assessee's age, her accumulated past savings, and agricultural income, the Tribunal accepted Rs. 11.50 lakh of the cash deposit as explained. The remaining Rs. 3.00 lakh was sustained as an unexplained addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds on merit. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the Chartered Accountant's illness prevented them from filing details before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal in writing, stating points for determination and rendering a decision on each with reasons. The CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment and/or penalty and is entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings. The law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition on account of interest receivable from Vikas Industries was to be restored as the assessee admitted to giving a loan. Regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s deletion was not fully justified and modified the addition, allowing a reasonable amount as agricultural income.
The Tribunal noted that the ground regarding the principle of mutuality was raised for the first time and not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A), it was in the interest of justice to restore the penalty issue as well to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to reconsider the assessee's application after giving due opportunity of being heard. The assessee's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not based on correct facts as it did not consider the rectification proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, in the interest of justice and considering the request for an opportunity to substantiate its case, decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit all requisite details and then decide the issue on merits, with a warning that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to pass an appropriate order as per law.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the mistake by the employee and to do justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for one final opportunity to the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment of tax rate by the CPC under Section 143(1) on a debatable issue without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee was not justified. Therefore, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed telescoping of excess stock and suppressed GP, reducing the addition. Unexplained unsecured loans and increase in capital were remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal noted factual inaccuracies in the CIT(E)'s order regarding the assessee's 12A registration and the date of filing the 80G application. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the mistake by the employee and to do justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for one final opportunity to the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the addition should be restricted to the peak credit. While the assessee did not present strong arguments against the addition under Section 68 itself, their grievance was that the addition should be limited to Rs. 15,27,000/- (peak credit) instead of the entire Rs. 41,07,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the peak credit working provided by the assessee required verification as it had not been examined by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to restrict the addition to the peak credit after due verification. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de-novo adjudication. Grounds 1(a) and 1(b) were dismissed as infructuous, and ground 1(c) was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the impugned issues back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to explain and prove the genuineness of the loan received from Mr. Umesh Shinde. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating each ground raised by the assessee, which is mandatory. Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing. Considering the assessee's request and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the sale deed mentioned specific sellers and that the assessee's name appeared as a vendor. However, it was also noted that the assessee had two PAN numbers, and the return filed pertained to a different PAN than the one used in the assessment order, preventing the AO from verifying the return's contents.
The assessee applied for withdrawal of the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal and the respondent had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that a delay of two seconds in filing the return, caused by technical glitches on the income tax portal, should not penalize the assessee. The return was to be treated as filed within the due date, allowing the carry forward of losses.