Loading ITAT cases…
42 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) did not consider the newly inserted proviso to Section 12A (Finance Act, 2024, w.e.f. 01/10/2024) which empowers condonation of delay for reasonable cause. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT (Exemption) to re-examine the condonation request and provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor provided a reasonable or sufficient cause for the significant delay. Consequently, the appeal was deemed invalid and was dismissed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemption) did not consider the newly inserted proviso to Section 12A (Finance Act, 2024, w.e.f. 01/10/2024) which empowers condonation of delay for reasonable cause. Consequently, the case was remanded to the CIT (Exemption) to re-examine the condonation request and provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's uneducated status, physical ailment, and the claim that physical service of notice was preferred in Form 35. It found that the assessee was not properly put to notice for the CIT(A) proceedings and, therefore, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 to 4. For future faceless proceedings, notices sent to the assessee's email will be considered proper service.
The Tribunal condoned the 23-day delay, noting that the assessee's explanation regarding Pongal holidays and auditor unavailability during a short response window constituted sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the explanation and disposed of the appeal on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to file a valid return of income within the stipulated time as per Section 139 of the Act, the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not admissible. The provisions of Section 80A(5) were applicable, disallowing the deduction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order lacked specificity, as it did not clearly state which activities of the Trust were not in line with its objectives. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of income classification during the original assessment, making enquiries and accepting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a possible view in law. Therefore, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 merely because he held a different opinion, as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the original assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the penalty order, initiated on 27/12/2019, was passed on 21/03/2022. Considering the extended period due to the COVID-19 pandemic and TOLA, the order should have been passed by 31/12/2021. Therefore, the penalty order was barred by limitation and deemed void-ab-initio, making it unnecessary to address other grounds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by deeming the financial statements as self-generated without proper examination, and the AO failed to verify the balance sheet or consider past income. Citing CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017, the Tribunal determined that the assessee had a closing cash balance of Rs. 14,40,951/- as of 31/03/2016, and the cash deposits of Rs. 3,01,500/- were adequately explained as past savings and existing balance, thus deleting the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal found that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee had filed a return under Section 139(1) and paid tax on her admitted income. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, concluding that the loan from M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd was not an accommodation entry, considering the entity's listed status, previous genuine loan transactions with the assessee, and documentary evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order as the Revenue failed to present adverse material proving the transaction to be bogus.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grievance had been redressed by the Assessing Officer's subsequent rectification order, which assessed the income as Nil. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to pass a speaking order while disposing of the assessee's objections for reopening the assessment under Section 147. This failure led to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings by the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions related to certain unsecured loans and a portion of gifts, while confirming others. The disallowance of interest on confirmed unsecured loans was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the right to FTC cannot be denied for procedural delays. Citing an amendment to Rule 128(9) and its Explanatory Memorandum (retroactively applicable for FY 2022-23 claims), and Article 24 of the DTAA, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC.
The Tribunal observed that Section 269SS applies to the acceptance of loans or deposits, not to the repayment of loans given in earlier periods, as claimed by the assessee. Since the Revenue failed to categorically establish that the receipts were fresh loans violating Section 269SS, and the lower authorities did not adequately consider the assessee's additional evidence, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not warranted. The Tribunal therefore directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider additional evidences provided by the assessee to substantiate the time deposits and decide the case on merits. The additional grounds challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice were not adjudicated, becoming infructuous due to the remand.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 153A based on material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 153C. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The tribunal noted that the Revenue had not disputed the assessee's consistent net profit percentage of around 16% from audited financial reports in previous and subsequent years. Following the principle of consistency, the tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts, after accounting for the 4% already admitted by the assessee.
The tribunal condoned the 474-day delay, finding the assessee's reasons for non-filing and non-participation before the CIT(A) to be bonafide and beyond their control. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside as it was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order lacked proper reasoning and failed to specify which objectives were not charitable, despite the trust's activities being charitable in nature and it already holding registration under Section 12A. The tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the Section 80G registration.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 153A based on material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 153C. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that handing over possession under a JDA for development does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 25,31,95,262/- made on account of non-genuine purchases, finding that other evidence proved the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the addition of Rs. 41,01,77,981/- concerning purchases from Adani Enterprises. Regarding interest income, the Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly netted off interest received from LC discounting charges and allowed the ground.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's timely filed submissions, leading to an ex-parte disposal in violation of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that handing over possession under a JDA for development does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that handing over possession under a JDA for development does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the source of the cash deposits before the AO, which were out of withdrawals made from her spouse's account. The Tribunal noted that while the AO did not accept the submissions due to a time lag of approximately one year between the withdrawals and deposits, there is no legal bar to holding cash for an extended period after withdrawal before depositing it. The AO had not presented any material evidence to demonstrate that the withdrawn cash was utilized for any other purpose. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had indeed held the cash for a longer duration before depositing it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 14,34,500. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 69A addition was unwarranted because the cash deposits were recorded in the books of accounts and adequately explained as recoveries from sundry debtors/advances from prior years. For the Section 68 addition, the Tribunal found that the AO did not have sufficient time to examine the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan parties due to late submission of confirmations, thus remanding this issue back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing specific reasons or explaining which objectives were not charitable, despite the assessee already holding registration under section 12A of the Act. After reviewing the trust's objects, the Tribunal concluded that its activities were charitable and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under section 80G.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed erroneously filed the revised return, declaring income from a subsequent year. In the interest of justice, the AO/CPC was directed to process the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order casual, noting that the assessee's objects were charitable in nature and it already held registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant Section 80G registration to the assessee, allowing the appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a speaking order or adequately discussing the charitable nature of the trust's objectives, despite the trust already holding Section 12A registration. The Tribunal determined that the trust's stated objectives indicate charitable activities and therefore directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 80G to the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the Revenue had not disputed the assessee's consistent net profit percentage of around 16% from audited financial reports in previous and subsequent years. Following the principle of consistency, the tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 16% on the unaccounted receipts, after accounting for the 4% already admitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 153A based on material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 153C. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 153A based on material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 153C. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in framing the assessment under Section 153A based on material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 153C. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that handing over possession under a JDA for development does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous.
The tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the MD's medical condition and supporting affidavits. Regarding the disallowance, the tribunal noted the AO failed to segregate expenses supported by valid vouchers from self-made ones. Considering the nature of the business, the ad-hoc 10% disallowance was deemed high and was restricted to 5% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds. Regarding the addition of Rs.25,83,89,678/-, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion, implicitly accepting the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits from sales. For the addition of Rs.37,74,000/-, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, indicating agreement with the CIT(A)'s deletion. Concerning the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned from a cooperative bank, which is itself a cooperative society engaged in banking activities, is eligible for deduction. The Tribunal distinguished the decision in Pr.CIT v. Totgars Co-operative Society by noting that the facts were different and the assessee was not trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal relied on its consistent view and decisions of coordinate benches, directing the AO to allow the deduction. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to M/s. Balaji Infra and M/s. Sri Sai Balaji (except for minor unreconciled balances) and K. Ashok, finding that the loans were through banking channels and, for K. Ashok, only repayments were made. However, additions for other parties (G. Mohan Rao, G. Rinivasa Rao, Jasti Madava Rao Guntur, P. Chalapathi, Rafuddin) were confirmed as the assessee failed to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness.