Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee took loans and made cash deposits from business sales. The assessee claimed the additions were erroneous and not supported by evidence, and that they were unable to respond to notices due to a misplaced phone. The Tribunal found it just and proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based solely on voluntary disclosure made during survey proceedings, especially when the income is accepted and brought to tax. There must be actual concealment or non-disclosure, which was not established.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) set aside the case to the AO due to the assessee's non-compliance during reassessment. Considering amendments to Section 251 (Finance Act, 2021), the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order regarding the penalty and restore the appeal to the AO. The AO is directed to dispose of the penalty issue along with the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal held that income from short-term coaching activities can qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if the institution operates solely for educational purposes, without a profit motive, and reinvests income into educational activities, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. It further ruled that depreciation on fixed assets existing before 01/04/2015 is allowable, as the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. The addition for the sale of library books for AY 2015-16 was deleted, as it was already accounted for in an earlier financial year.
The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the additions, noting the assessee's application for PAN cancellation and that the deposits were declared under the AOP's PAN. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the additions were unsustainable since the corresponding receipts were already declared by the AOP.
The Tribunal held that income from short-term coaching activities can qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if the institution operates solely for educational purposes, without a profit motive, and reinvests income into educational activities, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. It further ruled that depreciation on fixed assets existing before 01/04/2015 is allowable, as the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. The addition for the sale of library books for AY 2015-16 was deleted, as it was already accounted for in an earlier financial year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the case on merits instead of passing an ex-parte order. Considering the assessee's prayer and the issues, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh consideration, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard, with a caution for prompt cooperation.
The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the additions, noting the assessee's application for PAN cancellation and that the deposits were declared under the AOP's PAN. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the additions were unsustainable since the corresponding receipts were already declared by the AOP.
The Tribunal held that income from short-term coaching activities can qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if the institution operates solely for educational purposes, without a profit motive, and reinvests income into educational activities, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. It further ruled that depreciation on fixed assets existing before 01/04/2015 is allowable, as the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. The addition for the sale of library books for AY 2015-16 was deleted, as it was already accounted for in an earlier financial year.
The Tribunal held that income from short-term coaching activities can qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if the institution operates solely for educational purposes, without a profit motive, and reinvests income into educational activities, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. It further ruled that depreciation on fixed assets existing before 01/04/2015 is allowable, as the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. The addition for the sale of library books for AY 2015-16 was deleted, as it was already accounted for in an earlier financial year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision (Vavveru Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd.), held that interest income from an agricultural cooperative society's own surplus funds invested in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) if attributable to specified activities. It concluded that the assessee's investments were from its own surplus funds, making the interest income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not benefit from the ex parte proceedings and that setting aside the impugned orders to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits, after providing an opportunity to be heard, would serve the interests of justice.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with the additional evidence, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court decision in The Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. case, held that interest derived from fixed deposits made in nationalized banks from the assessee's own surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, distinguishing the Totgars case based on the source and nature of funds.
The Tribunal ruled that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering merits and failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the assessee's statement that he attempted to verify the Income Tax portal for the assessment order as a precautionary measure after receiving it. The Tribunal acknowledged that the order was not found on the portal at that time, leading to a delay. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee stood to gain nothing by filing the appeal with a delay and no mala fides could be inferred. Condoning the delay would allow the cause to be decided on merits, determining the correct tax liability in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before itself and also the delay before the CIT(A), restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.