Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessee(s) against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The appeals are being processed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessee(s) against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The appeals are being processed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal consolidated the appeals for hearing. The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different charitable trusts. The appeals are directed against separate orders issued by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption).
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessee(s) against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The appeals are being heard together.
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different assessee(s) against separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption). The appeals are being considered together.
The Tribunal is hearing a group of eleven appeals filed by different charitable trusts. The appeals are directed against separate orders issued by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption).
The Tribunal has decided to allow these appeals. The specific reasoning for allowing the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it pertains to orders passed by the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal has consolidated these appeals for hearing and pronouncement. The specific decision on the merits of each appeal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications solely on the ground of being premature without considering them on merits. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application was not considered on merit. Given that the assessee had a valid registration under Section 12A/12AB, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the application was not considered on its merit due to the incorrect clause selection. It directed the CIT(E) to treat the application under the correct clause and consider it on merit after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should treat the application under the correct clause and consider it on its merit, granting the assessee an opportunity for a hearing and to furnish necessary details.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the notices were not sent to the correct email address provided for service. Consequently, there was sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, after the Assessing Officer was aware of the death and the legal representative, is a nullity and void. Therefore, the assessment order is quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land was situated beyond 8 kilometers from the municipal limits, thus not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii)(b). Consequently, capital gains additions and Section 50C additions were deleted. For cash deposits, a partial addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay. Firstly, the CIT(A) incorrectly referred to section 119(2)(b) for condoning delay, whereas the power to condone delay in filing appeals lies with the CIT(A) under section 249(3). Secondly, the CIT(A) failed to follow the procedure under section 250(1) by not recording whether a show cause notice or notice of hearing was issued to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal independently examined the facts and found that the email address used for sending notices did not belong to the assessee, indicating no knowledge of the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, a substantial part of the delay falls within the period condoned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, as there was no intentional or deliberate delay. Considering that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to be more vigilant. Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed, and Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was within jurisdiction to invoke section 263 as the AO's order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was largely non-compliant in providing details and did not file any written submission to controvert the PCIT's findings. Citing precedents, the Tribunal also highlighted that an appeal can be dismissed if the appellant does not appear or pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's case was similar to that of family members where similar LTCG claims were allowed. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Calcutta High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj, noting that the assessee here conducted risk analysis and held shares for a significant period, indicating genuine investment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence. The CIT(A) has co-terminus powers with the AO and can make further inquiries. Sub-section (4) of section 250 allows the CIT(A) to conduct further inquiries. In the interest of justice, additional evidence should have been admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of most lenders for unsecured loans, allowing the appeal on this ground. For indirect expenses, the ad hoc disallowance was restricted to 10%. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal noted that similar grounds and facts were decided in favor of the assessee's family members in previous appeals, which were also upheld by the High Court. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme application is not settled.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the average of the DVO's and the assessee's valuer's report for Section 50C additions. For Section 54B, it directed verification of the nexus between sale proceeds and new land purchase. For Section 54F, it remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with the consent of the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to both parties to seek restoration if the VSVS scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,17,797/- concerning AY 2016-17 as it was not picked for scrutiny and could not be disturbed without reassessment. For AY 2017-18, a part of the addition (Rs. 2,00,000/-) was upheld, and the remaining was deleted. The addition taxed at the enhanced rate under Section 115BBE was directed to be taxed at the normal rate as the provision was not retrospective.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not issue a specific show cause notice for not adhering to Rule 11AA(2)(g) concerning expenditures for religious purposes in the last three financial years. The assessee had provided evidence that no such expenditure was incurred. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee is an old trust with valid registration and provisional approval.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice and communication issues. On merits, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the tax payment made under IDS-16 and, if verified, to facilitate the issuance of the IDS Form-4 as per CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO failed to properly consider the taxability of interest income as 'Income from other sources' under Section 56 and the disallowance of related interest expenditure under Section 57. The Tribunal also addressed the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income, noting that it was not clearly attributable to the society's core activities.
The Tribunal held that providing locker facilities is not an integral part of banking activities for a co-operative credit society that does not possess a banking license. Therefore, income from locker rent is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the expenditure claimed against locker rent income.