ITAT Ranchi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption because the total receipts exceeded ₹1.00 crore and accounts were not audited as required. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee should be given credit for the expenses incurred in running the college.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as there was no response from the assessee despite several opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made necessary inquiries, even if the PCIT found them inadequate. The Tribunal noted that a mere change of opinion or inadequacy of inquiry is not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263, especially when the AO had considered all available details.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's report accepted that no interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was chargeable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the interest and issue a fresh demand notice if any.

The Tribunal noted that the initial estimate of profit by the AO was 10%, reduced to 8% by the CIT(A), and further restricted to 5% by the ITAT for the A.Y. 2009-10. Following the previous decision for A.Y. 2009-10, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply a rate of 5% on the total contract receipts for A.Y. 2010-11. The appeal is partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that once the status of a 'Trust' is decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 12A/12AA, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) can deny that status. The CIT is empowered to examine if activities are as per provisions, but denying the status is beyond their power.

During the course of hearing, the assessee's representative admitted that since the income was declared as NIL, the issue of carry forward of loss became infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was required on transportation payments if each individual payment did not exceed Rs. 20,000, as per Section 194C. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1)/(1A) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was required on transportation payments if each individual payment did not exceed Rs. 20,000, as per Section 194C. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1)/(1A) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was defective because it did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This ambiguity, along with a failure to strike off inapplicable portions of the notice, rendered the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice before making any adjustment under section 143(1) is compulsory. As no show cause notice was issued to the assessee, the intimation under section 143(1) is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. The CIT(A) had considered evidence and judicial decisions while deleting the disallowances, and the Revenue failed to dislodge these findings.

The assessee's appeal is dismissed as withdrawn because they have availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme is not accepted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeal due to availing the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.

The necessary forms for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme have been filed, and the department has issued Form No. 2. The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal. Considering these submissions, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Considering these submissions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee has availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for the impugned appeal and has filed the necessary form. The appeal is therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to availing the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as per the request made in light of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee reserves the liberty to have the appeal restored if the scheme application is not accepted.

The assessee has submitted Form No. 1 for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme application is rejected.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal and a perusal of the letter indicated that Form No. 1 for the scheme was filed. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee is allowed to get the appeal restored if the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme application is not accepted by the department.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the submissions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the audit report was prepared under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and that the assessee's claim for exemption under this section should be considered. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's claim and the precedent regarding the exclusion of interest income for calculating the 50% limit.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 139(4) should be considered as sufficient compliance and read together with Section 139(1). Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80IB deduction solely on the ground of belated filing was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the loan from Shri Virendra Prasad Mehta was received through banking channels, and its identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness were proven, thus the addition on this count was deleted. Similarly, the gifts from closely related individuals were confirmed and fell under the exempted category as per Section 56(2) of the Act, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to properly investigate Shri Ram Bahadur Singh, who was identified as the actual payer, and lacked corroborative evidence linking the purchases to the assessee. Despite invoices being in the assessee's name, the Tribunal ruled that insufficient verification of the actual transaction and the undisputed denial by the assessee meant the liability could not be placed on him. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 139(4) should be considered as sufficient compliance and read together with Section 139(1). Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80IB deduction solely on the ground of belated filing was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the rejection of the application. The short notice provided by the CIT(E) and the holiday period led to the assessee's submission being overlooked.

The Tribunal perused the appeal and found it to be an assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had rightly directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the value determined by the DVO as per Section 50C of the Act. As the assessee provided no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, it was upheld.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with notices from lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity and undertaking to be more vigilant, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the order under section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order for AY 2015-2016, had been quashed. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2015-2016 was quashed, and the related appeal was allowed. For AYs 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, the issues were identical to those for AY 2015-2016, and in the interest of justice, these appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the order under section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order for AY 2015-2016, had been quashed. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2015-2016 was quashed, and the related appeal was allowed. For AYs 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, the issues were identical to those for AY 2015-2016, and in the interest of justice, these appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, there was a lack of compliance from the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and that income tax laws are welfare legislation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO to provide a fair hearing and pass a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the order under section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order for AY 2015-2016, had been quashed. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2015-2016 was quashed, and the related appeal was allowed. For AYs 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, the issues were identical to those for AY 2015-2016, and in the interest of justice, these appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days, acknowledging the unintentional nature and the assessee's potential for a good case. The Tribunal also noted that while opportunities were provided, circumstances beyond the assessee's control might have prevented compliance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to identify any discrepancies in the audited books of account. It was noted that petrol pumps were allowed to accept demonetized currency and the cash deposits were from recorded sales. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deemed to be double taxation.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, there was a lack of compliance from the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and that income tax laws are welfare legislation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO to provide a fair hearing and pass a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to disbelieve the assessee's claim of LTCG. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Arun Kumar Agarwal, the Tribunal stated that transactions cannot be considered sham merely because a broker was involved in unfair trade practices, especially when the assessee acted bonafidely and the shares were held for a long period. The assessee's son's case also involved acceptance of similar transactions.

The Tribunal held that for AYs 2013-14 and 2015-16, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not brought forth any incriminating material, either found during the search or used in the assessment, to disbelieve the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under Section 10(38). Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the assessment orders were quashed. For AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, the Tribunal noted that in the case of the assessee's son, transactions in the same company (Global Capital Markets Ltd.) were accepted as genuine and the benefit of Section 10(38) was granted. In the assessee's case, the Assessing Officer relied on an investigation report but failed to provide any evidence connecting the assessee to alleged manipulation. Therefore, considering the High Court of Ranchi's decision in Arun Kumar Agarwal, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. All appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that for AYs 2013-14 and 2015-16, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not brought forth any incriminating material, either found during the search or used in the assessment, to disbelieve the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under Section 10(38). Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the assessment orders were quashed. For AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14, the Tribunal noted that in the case of the assessee's son, transactions in the same company (Global Capital Markets Ltd.) were accepted as genuine and the benefit of Section 10(38) was granted. In the assessee's case, the Assessing Officer relied on an investigation report but failed to provide any evidence connecting the assessee to alleged manipulation. Therefore, considering the High Court of Ranchi's decision in Arun Kumar Agarwal, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. All appeals were allowed.