ITAT Ranchi Judgments — May 2025

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 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.

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 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 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 Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and that the details were available with him. The PCIT's action of assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry was not justified, especially when the AO had taken a plausible view. The Tribunal also noted that no adverse inferences were drawn by the AO or PCIT in subsequent proceedings, and the case involved two possible views, one of which was taken by the AO.

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 assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on transportation charges as the payments to individual transporters did not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the assessee made payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- to any single transporter. Consequently, the charging of interest under Section 201(1)/(1A) was also deemed baseless.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Act as the payments to individual transporters did not exceed Rs. 20,000. Furthermore, the charging of interest under Section 201(1)/(1A) was also deemed baseless due to the lack of a primary TDS default.

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 considered the rival submissions. For repayment of loan, capital expenditure, and advertisement expenditure, the CIT(A) had considered evidence and judicial decisions. The revenue failed to dislodge the findings of fact by the CIT(A) regarding the repayment of loan. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 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 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 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 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'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 availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the 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 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 held that Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be read together, and a return filed under Section 139(4) constitutes sufficient compliance. Therefore, disallowing a deduction under Section 801B solely on the ground of late filing is unjustified.

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 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 held that Section 139(1) and Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act are to be read together, and a return filed under Section 139(4) is to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed under Section 139(1). Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB solely on the ground of belated filing under Section 139(1) is not justified.

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 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 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 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 noted that the assessment order for AY 2015-16 was consequential to an order u/s.263, which had already been quashed by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed. For AY 2014-15 and 2016-17, the issues were similar and identical to the quashed order, and thus these appeals were restored to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2015-2016, which was consequential to the quashed order u/s.263, could not survive. For AY 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, the issues were found to be identical to AY 2015-2016, and in the interest of justice, these appeals were restored to the AO for re-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 while opportunities were provided, there was no compliance from the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and that income tax laws are distinct from penal legislation, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer.

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.

For the search assessments (AYs 2013-14 & 2015-16), the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders, ruling that no incriminating material was found during the search to disbelieve the LTCG claim, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. For the non-search assessments (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14), the Tribunal deleted the additions, finding no evidence linking the assessee to alleged manipulation and relying on the Ranchi High Court's Arun Kumar Agarwal judgment that bona fide transactions cannot be considered sham merely due to a company being manipulated. The Tribunal also noted consistency with the assessee's son's case where similar transactions were accepted.

The Tribunal quashed the search assessments (AYs 2013-14, 2015-16) due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. For the non-search assessments (AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14), the Tribunal deleted the additions, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking the assessee to manipulation and relying on the Ranchi High Court's ruling in Arun Kumar Agarwal that bona fide transactions cannot be deemed sham without concrete proof.

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.