Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that since there was no forfeiture clause in the agreement and the matter was sub-judice, the provisions of Section 56(2)(ix) were not applicable. Any advance received would be reduced from the cost of acquisition when the property is eventually sold.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) and Karnataka High Court decisions (e.g., Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd.), held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits of its surplus funds with co-operative banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and also for the delay in filing TDS returns, considering the company's IBC proceedings and subsequent management handover. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim that the assessment was made in the name of a deceased person, who expired on 17.08.2013, appeared correct and was conceded by the Ld. DR. The CIT(A)/NFAC had also recorded this fact but passed the order in the name of the deceased person and referred the case back to the AO. The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter to his file. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to verify the assessee's claim regarding the demise of the assessee and decide the case on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee (through his legal heir). The assessee is directed to appear without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The solitary ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and exceeding the limitation period. Additionally, the approval under section 153D was found to be common and not for each assessment year, rendering the assessment order invalid. The Tribunal also noted a lack of independent corroborative material to support the addition.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without deciding the merits. The Tribunal acknowledged the CIRP period and the subsequent handover of management as a sufficient cause for the delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC and the TDS returns. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, and meritorious cases should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal held that FTS, in the absence of a specific clause in the DTAA, should be treated as business income. Since the foreign company had no PE in India, the payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision in Bangkok Glass Industry Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the CIT(A)/NFAC, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. However, considering the arguments, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity for the assessee to substantiate her claims.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80P in respect of interest income earned by the assessee from co-operative banks. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 80P, particularly sub-clause (d), which allows deduction for interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with other co-operative societies, with the object of furthering the co-operative movement. The Tribunal noted the conflicting judicial pronouncements from various High Courts, including the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and the Gujarat High Court in State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), which supported the assessee's claim. Following the principle of preferring a view favorable to the assessee in case of conflict between non-jurisdictional High Courts, as per the Bombay High Court's decision in K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), the Tribunal followed the view that the interest income is eligible for deduction. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 14 dated 28.12.2006, which clarifies that Section 80P(4) was intended to exclude co-operative banks functioning at par with commercial banks. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for quantum addition for the same assessment year was set aside for denovo adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal from the penalty order was also set aside to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Relying on judicial precedents from the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana and Kerala, the Tribunal found that the character of income does not change and that prudent financial conduct should not be discouraged.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored all issues related to the quantum addition and consequential penalty to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition was made under a different section (115BBC) than the one stated in the reasons for reopening (Section 68). This discrepancy meant the AO failed to assume proper jurisdiction for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition was made under a different section (115BBC) than the one stated in the reasons for reopening (Section 68). This discrepancy meant the AO failed to assume proper jurisdiction for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The issue of deduction for interest income earned by primary credit co-operative societies under Section 80P(2) is considered res integra, with consistent views from the Tribunal and High Court allowing such deductions. The Pr. CIT's action was deemed a futile exercise.
The ITAT found that the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A) were improper, as the original assessee had died and the legal heir, although registered on the portal, missed hearing notices. It observed that audited books were submitted but not considered, leading to an unfair assessment and potential double taxation. The tribunal quashed the ex-parte orders and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, granting one final opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored all issues related to the quantum addition and consequential penalty to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee, a Co-operative Society, on its investments with Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, which clarified that interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with other co-operative societies are also entitled to deduct the whole of such income, with the object of furthering the co-operative movement. The Tribunal also noted conflicting High Court decisions but preferred the view favorable to the assessee, citing the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom). The Tribunal followed the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj). The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, suggesting that donations should be taxed under section 68 of the Act due to the assessee's inability to explain the nature and source of the sums. However, during the reassessment proceedings, despite objections from the assessee, the AO ultimately made additions under section 115BBC of the Act. The Tribunal found that the addition was made on a ground different from the one specified in the reasons recorded for reopening. This discrepancy, where the reassessment was initiated referencing section 68 but concluded with additions under section 115BBC, rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid and lacking proper jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which emphasize that reassessment proceedings must be based on the reasons recorded and that additions cannot be made on grounds not specified in the reopening notice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that since the assessee succeeded on the legal grounds, dealing with the remaining grounds would be academic.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition was made under a different section (115BBC) than the one stated in the reasons for reopening (Section 68). This discrepancy meant the AO failed to assume proper jurisdiction for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on the belief that donations should be taxed under Section 68 due to alleged non-explanation of nature and source. However, the final reassessment order made additions under Section 115BBC. This discrepancy means the addition was made on a ground not specified in the reasons recorded for reopening, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court in *Hindustan Lever Ltd.* and the Supreme Court's affirmation in *PCIT vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd.*, which emphasize that reassessment must be based on the reasons recorded and cannot be supplemented by affidavits or oral submissions. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to assume proper jurisdiction for reassessment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Since the assessee succeeded on this legal ground, other grounds were deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and that donations should be taxed under section 68 of the Act. However, despite the assessee's objections, the AO ultimately made additions under section 115BBC of the Act. This constituted a significant deviation from the grounds stated in the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Lark Chemicals Pvt Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court) and Hindustan Lever Ltd., which emphasize that additions made in reassessment proceedings must be based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The AO's failure to assume proper jurisdiction by making additions under a different provision than that specified in the reasons recorded rendered the reassessment proceedings unsustainable and void. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The assessee's Ground No. 1, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction, was allowed. Similar legal grounds raised in appeals for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18 were also allowed. Remaining grounds were held to be infructuous.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity for a video conference hearing, when requested, is a violation of natural justice. The High Courts of Madras and Bombay have also held that providing an opportunity for video conferencing when asked is mandatory.
The Tribunal found that due to the critical health condition of the assessee's mother, necessary details and documents could not be furnished to the lower authorities. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, relying on a catena of consistent decisions including the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year, held that interest income earned from deposits with Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal held that claiming an unsustainable deduction, even if rectified, does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to make submissions before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. However, considering the assessee's plea of bonafide reasons for non-compliance and the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the settled legal principles regarding condonation of delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the deduction claim under Section 80JJAA after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal, considering the rival contentions and the record, observed that the assessee had failed to furnish replies or documentary evidence before the CIT(A) on the scheduled hearing dates, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the assessee's counsel pleaded for one more opportunity before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances. In the larger interest of justice and to be fair to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised before it to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the submissions to be filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, passing a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to update their contact details on the Income Tax website. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated certain grounds of appeal related to the validity of reopening and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the legal issues raised in ground No. 4 back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The merits of the case were also restored to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable. Regarding the disallowance of compensation of Rs. 21.51 crores, the Tribunal found that no incriminating material was discovered during the search action that indicated the compensation paid was not genuine. The statement recorded under Section 131, which formed the basis for the AO's findings, was taken after the search concluded. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 76,55,000/- on account of cash deposits was also made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was already completed under Section 153C, and the subsequent additions under Section 153A were based on post-search inquiries and information gathered during assessment proceedings, not on search findings. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the approval for the assessment under Section 153A was obtained mechanically. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.