Loading ITAT cases…
225 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee's grounds were primarily based on a violation of natural justice due to non-receipt of the show-cause notice. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court emphasized that Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a mechanical dismissal without considering the merits or documentary evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remanded the case to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d), and the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a deduction that was never claimed. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from its surplus funds deposited in banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the limited opportunities provided to the assessee before the CIT(A) and the facts of the case, the ex-parte order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, meaning its belated filing should not adversely affect the eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was granted Section 12AA registration for the assessment years under consideration. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT, Exemption vs. Anjana Foundation and a coordinate bench's ruling in Trinity Education Trust v. ITO, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the claim under Section 11 on merits after accepting the belatedly filed Form 10B. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications under section 80G(5) are directory in nature, and rejection based on pure technicalities of delay is not justified. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the delayed application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, as it is not a 'co-operative bank' for the purpose of Section 80P(4). This decision followed pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, referencing a proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it not intentional. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the issues on merits instead of dismissing the appeal on limitation. Consequently, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained separate books of account for both businesses, and the genuineness of the profit from credit facilities and the loss from sugar manufacturing was not controverted. The AO's estimation and addition were deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to decide the appeal afresh after the disposal of the quantum assessment appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and reliance on judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal admitted the legal issues raised by the assessee, but decided to remit them, along with the issues on merits, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have condoned the delay, as per the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, to allow substantial justice. Technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice, especially when the merits of the case need to be examined.
The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was rightly disallowed by the CPC, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the CIT(A)'s findings remained uncontroverted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details, as the assessee claimed to have not filed details before AO but did so before CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heir on record and provide an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on several coordinate bench decisions to support this.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because it was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year without proper sanction as required by Section 151, especially since the income escaping assessment was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment order and penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposits with banks is attributable to its business activity of providing credit facilities to its members and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, following various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a personal hearing by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of firstly claiming exemption u/s.10A and thereafter setting off brought forward unabsorbed business losses is justified. The DRP's finding in this regard was affirmed.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue because the assessee's entire expenditure, including repairs and maintenance, was recovered from associated enterprises with a markup. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to pass an order within the stipulated time. Following the Delhi High Court's decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant immunity to the assessee and cancel the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the filing of Form 10B is procedural and not mandatory, and therefore, its belated filing should not adversely affect the eligibility for exemption. This was supported by the decision in CIT, Exemption vs. Anjana Foundation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA for the period under consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the claim under Section 11 on merits after accepting the belatedly filed Form 10B. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of denial of personal hearing was not explicitly decided.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restore the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the assessee's ground that the application was rejected due to the selection of a wrong code. The Tribunal acknowledged a consistent view in similar cases where assessees should not be penalized for selecting the wrong code and should be given another opportunity to file the application with the correct code. The CIT(E) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order. The assessee was also directed to be vigilant, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and file all required details. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order of dismissal for non-prosecution was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not provide reasons for the decision. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's grounds were primarily based on a violation of natural justice due to non-receipt of the show-cause notice. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit details.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the condonation of delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. Refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The delay was condoned, and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits, including the additional ground, after affording a due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant with email access and submissions. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the finding of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT vs. M.S. Gokuldham Enterprise LLP was squarely applicable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions prescribed in section 10(38) for claiming LTCG. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that while the AO's addition was based on an interim SEBI report, the final SEBI report had exonerated the scrip (Mishkafin Finance and Trading Company) from all charges. This indicated that the AO's additions were based on a preponderance of probability, which was subsequently nullified by the SEBI's final report. Therefore, there was no ground to doubt the genuineness of the LTCG claimed by the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue failed to succeed on merits, and the effective grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains claimed by the assessee under Section 10(38) were not genuine and therefore not eligible for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the SEBI, in its order dated 05.10.2017, had revoked directions against 104 parties, and the assessee's name did not appear in the list of persons against whom adverse findings were given. The SEBI order indicated that while some entities had violations related to disclosure under SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, and SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares And Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, there were no adverse findings against 104 entities regarding price manipulation or prima facie violations for which interim orders were passed. The Tribunal found that the assessee's initial admission during the survey, though retracted, was voluntary and not disproved on merits. The AO's detailed analysis of the modus operandi of bogus LTCG, the manipulation of Mishka's share price by entry operators, the company's poor financial fundamentals, and the suspicious nature of the share transactions, including the offline purchase and the broker's statement, supported the conclusion that the gains were bogus. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond to the AO and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal, noted that the assessee claimed unavoidable circumstances for non-compliance. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the elaborate submissions made by the assessee regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2). Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had demonstrated filing of requisite details/documents for the outstanding liabilities, which the CIT(A) had overlooked. Considering the interest of justice and without delving into the merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide the issues afresh on merits, considering submissions already on record and any further submissions by the assessee, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to be vigilant in responding to notices. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The penalty appeal was also set aside to the file of the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, directing the assessee to provide details and submissions regarding the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits and did not respond to statutory notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, referencing a proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to make submissions before the AO, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee contended that this non-compliance was due to unavoidable circumstances and that elaborate submissions were made before the CIT(A)/NFAC, which were not considered. The Tribunal found that the issue relating to deduction under Section 80P(2) is covered in favour of the assessee by judicial pronouncements. It also noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the submissions made by the assessee regarding both the Section 80P(2) deduction and the addition for outstanding liabilities under Section 41(1). Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant and respond timely to notices. The penalty appeal was also set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as a consequence of the quantum appeal being set aside. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2022, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, which was based on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments that the filing of Form 10B is procedural and not mandatory, and therefore, belated filing should not adversely affect the eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA for the period under consideration, and Form 10B was filed, albeit belatedly. Relying on the decision in Trinity Education Trust v. ITO and the Gujarat High Court in CIT, Exemption vs. Anjana Foundation, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the claim for exemption under Section 11 on merits after accepting the belatedly filed Form 10B. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the sale transactions of shares could not be doubted as the assessee provided evidence of purchase, sale, payment, and demat account entries. The Tribunal also noted that the SEBI had revoked directions against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 14.07.2022 is bad in law. This was based on the fact that the order under Section 148A(d) indicated that the income escaping assessment was Rs. 27,07,760/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. As per Section 149 of the Act, after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year, a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued if the income escaping assessment is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case, the notice was issued after the lapse of three years for AY 2016-17. Furthermore, Section 151 mandates that if more than three years have elapsed, approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. The approval in this case was obtained from the Principal Commissioner, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 151(ii). Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. DCIT and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Core Logistic Company Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed. All other grounds were rendered academic and dismissed as unadjudicated. For the penalty appeal, since the assessment order and notice were quashed, the penalty could not be sustained, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty. The appeal in ITA No. 1615/PUN/2025 was partly allowed, and the appeal in ITA No. 1840/PUN/2025 was allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments for condoning the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal noted that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act specifically excludes benefits for trusts established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. The Tribunal found that the assessee's objects and activities were predominantly for the Jain Kasar community, not for the public at large, and that the evidence submitted did not substantiate genuine charitable activities. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee, stating that they were either factually different or related to older provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the ratio of Bayath Kutuchhi Dasha Oswal Jain Mahajan Trust was not applicable as the assessee's trust was meant only for the religious activities of a particular community. The judgment in Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust was deemed inapplicable as it pertained to the old Section 12A provisions, whereas the current case involves amended Section 12AB. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee trust was not entitled to registration as it constituted a specified violation under Explanation (d) of Section 12AB(4). As the Section 12A registration was denied, the approval under Section 80G was also rightly refused. Both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly verified the details submitted by the assessee regarding agricultural income and cash deposits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's objects and activities were predominantly for the benefit of the specific Jain Kasar Samaj community, not for the public at large, which is a violation of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the cited judgment of Bayath Kutuchhi Dasha Oswal Jain Mahajan Trust, stating that in that case, the trust had numerous other objects for general public benefit, unlike the present assessee. The Tribunal also held that the reliance on the Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust judgment was misplaced as it pertained to the old provisions of Section 12A, whereas the current case deals with the amended Section 12AB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee trust, being purely for the religious activities of a particular community, is not entitled to registration as it constitutes a specified violation under Explanation (d) of Section 12AB(4). Consequently, the rejection of Section 80G approval was also upheld. Both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that if the turnover in FY 2018-19 was less than Rs. 400 crore, the tax rate should be 25%. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not intentional and caused by a genuine clerical mistake. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deeming it unintentional, and admitted it for adjudication. As the ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.