Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the arrangement was a temporary letting out of assets for business purposes to tide over a crisis, and not a discontinuation of business. Therefore, the income earned is to be considered 'Business Income', and set off of business loss is allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan creditors. The lower appellate authority's deletion of additions was found to be cryptic and lacking proper application of mind. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not err in dismissing the Revenue's ground of appeal concerning the deduction under Section 80JJA. The CIT(A) had rightly allowed the deduction, finding that the delay in filing the return of income was due to technical glitches and not intentional. Crucially, the assessee had filed the required report in Form 10DA on November 30, 2018, within the prescribed time limit, and other supporting documents like audited financial statements and Form 3CA-CD were also filed within the due date. The Tribunal agreed that a slight delay in filing the return, beyond the assessee's control, should not disentitle the assessee to the deduction when all other conditions were met. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. As a result, the similar issue raised by the assessee in their appeal regarding the Section 80JJA deduction was also allowed. The remaining grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue were considered general and consequential and did not require adjudication. The Tribunal did not decide on the procedural grounds (issue 1) or the transfer pricing grounds (issue 2) as they were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and not a mandatory one, disagreeing with the view of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)/AO. The Tribunal relied on various decisions of Co-ordinate Benches, including the Pune Tribunal's decision in Rameshwar Dnyaneshwar, which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy. The High Court held that filing FTC in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The Tribunal also found support from other Pune Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to allow the FTC of Rs. 8,57,902/- after due verification of Form 67. Ground No. 1 was allowed. Ground No. 2 was rendered academic, and Ground No. 3 was not pressed/argued and therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to technological unfamiliarity and requested an opportunity to present his case. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to substantiate the case. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of Exgratia/Long Term Service Award disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the ascertainment of liability. The disallowance of Leave Encashment was reversed as the assessee had already offered it to tax.
The Tribunal found that a proviso inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) effective from 01.10.2024 allows the Commissioner to condone delay if there is a reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal found that a proviso inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) effective from 01.10.2024 allows the Commissioner to condone delay if there is a reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that mentioning the wrong section code is a curable defect and the CIT erred in rejecting the application based on a technicality. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee's ground of appeal concerning the deduction under Section 80JJAA. The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the return was not intentional but due to technical glitches, and the delay was minimal. Crucially, the report in Form No. 10DA, which contains details for calculating the deduction, was filed on 30/11/2018, the due date, and other audit reports were also furnished within the prescribed time. Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Symboisis Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding. Therefore, the Revenue's ground of appeal on this issue was dismissed. Consequently, the assessee's similar ground of appeal for the grant of deduction under Section 80JJAA was also allowed. The remaining grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue were general and consequential, requiring no adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the primary issue regarding the validity of the assessment proceedings as raised in Ground No. 2. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication, with a direction to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with Shri Manilal M. Gada. The Tribunal noted that prior to April 1, 2023, the assessee was not required to explain the source of the source for unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 215 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that the delay was not intentional and was due to the untimely death of the assessee's Chartered Accountant due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal further held that, ideally, the matters should be restored to the CIT(A) as they were not dealt with on merits. However, considering the request of the assessee's counsel, the lack of strong objection from the Revenue, and the submission of a detailed paper book containing relevant documentation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the issues back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo assessment. The JAO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any material or documentary evidence to prove that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset, the lower authorities were justified in treating it as a taxable capital asset.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum, proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition under section 68 was uncalled for.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the CIT(A) and also failed to appear before the Tribunal. However, considering the grounds raised by the assessee regarding cash deposits and disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the 215-day delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), considering it a reasonable cause. The appeals were then restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, as the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in considering issues like capitation fees and personal use of vehicles at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, as these are matters for assessment under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also noted the lack of specific evidence presented by the PCIT to support these allegations.