Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee falls under the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) and there is no specific requirement for registration for such institutions. The Tribunal also found that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts which were duly audited.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeal on merit but had dismissed it for want of prosecution, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not respond to the notices, it was in the interest of justice to grant one final opportunity. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to allow the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A)/NFAC and that the penalty appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance. The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should have been decided only after the quantum appeal was decided and restored the penalty issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. They directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on Form 26A certificates, which showed the payees had included the income in their returns and paid taxes. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without a remand report and restored the issue to the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding depreciation on fixed assets with subsidy. For additional depreciation and expenditure on Mahila Netruva Vikas Gokul Gram, the issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing deduction for interest earned from cooperative banks under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not applied his mind to the information received from the DDIT (Investigation) and had not independently established that the references to 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' in the impounded documents pertained to the assessee, Bora Agro Foods. Furthermore, Mr. Abhay Kele, in his statement, had not identified 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' as Bora Agro Foods, despite identifying other individuals mentioned in the documents. The Tribunal found that there was no material with the AO to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment in the hands of Bora Agro Foods, making the notice under Section 148 bad in law. Consequently, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Ground No. 2 was dismissed as academic. The appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal did not specifically address the addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE on merits due to the invalidity of the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid. The AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the DDIT (Investigation) and had not independently established that the word 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' mentioned in the impounded documents referred to the assessee, Bora Agro Foods. The Tribunal noted that Shri Abhay Kele, in his statement, had identified other persons but had not identified 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' as Bora Agro Foods. This indicated a lack of a rational connection or live link between the material and the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons did not even indicate the amount of escaped income, suggesting a fishing inquiry rather than a reasonable belief. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court decisions in *S. Narayanappa* and *ITO v. Lakhmani Merwal Das* to emphasize the requirement of a rational connection and live link. Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Ground No. 2 became academic and was dismissed. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, finding that the reopening under Section 148 was invalid. The AO had not applied his mind to the information received from the DDIT (Investigation) and had not independently established that the 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' mentioned in the impounded documents referred to the assessee. Furthermore, Shri Abhay Kele, in his statement, had not identified 'Bora' or 'Bora Agro' as Bora Agro Foods, despite identifying other individuals. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasons did not indicate a rational connection to the belief that income had escaped assessment, nor did they specify the amount of escaped income, suggesting a fishing inquiry. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction, breaching settled legal principles. The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons lacked a live link between the material and the formation of the belief regarding escapement of income. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 was deemed bad in law. Ground No. 2 was dismissed as academic. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully explained the source of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 11,12,000/- from past bank withdrawals, leading to a partial deletion of the addition. The remaining addition of Rs. 92,000/- for unexplained cash was sustained. The addition of Rs. 36,542/- for undisclosed bank interest was confirmed due to lack of submissions from the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of no change in its charitable objects was valid, attributing the incorrect declaration to an inadvertent error. It further ruled that the belated filing of Form 10B, being prior to the filing of the income tax return, should be accepted, citing established precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the benefit under Section 11 and deleted the impugned addition, noting that even if treated as an AOP, no income would be taxable due to excess expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction as the business had not commenced. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not manufactured any product from the research and development, which is a prerequisite for claiming the deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) read with Explanation 1 to Section 35(2).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was not correct. The CIT(A) relied solely on DNK's affidavit without examining whether DNK owned up to total cash payments or only the profit element. The Tribunal noted that pocket diary transactions involved cash receipts and payments, and the payments made by the assessee to DNK were significantly higher than receipts from DNK. The CIT(A) should have addressed the source of cash available with the assessee for these payments. The Tribunal observed that DNK offering net profit on business transactions does not explain the source of cash payments made by the assessee to DNK. The CIT(A) failed to examine the issue in its entirety and disregarded the AO's finding of unexplained cash which DNK had not owned up as unexplained/unaccounted cash. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give an opportunity to the AO and the assessee to make submissions regarding DNK's affidavit and to examine the amount accepted by DNK vis-à-vis the total excess cash payment by the assessee. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the AO. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.