HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's age and ill-health, condoned the 128-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Since the original assessment was ex-parte and the Departmental Representative had no objection, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not with malafide intention and should be condoned based on a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause". The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case, it was appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that mere receipt of money under an agreement to sell does not automatically result in taxable income. Since no sale deed was executed, no transfer occurred as per Section 2(47) of the Act, and the amount retained the character of an advance. Furthermore, the assessment was vitiated due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the market value for the power supplied should be benchmarked against the rate at which electricity distribution companies supply electricity to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is procured from generating companies. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the MSEDCL's industrial sale tariff is an appropriate comparable.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by a State Electricity Board to industrial consumers should be considered the market value for the purpose of Section 80-IA. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and other High Court and Tribunal decisions, which supported using the industrial consumer tariff as a valid comparable for internal benchmarking.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record is void ab initio. Consequently, revision proceedings under section 263 based on such an invalid assessment order are also unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's representative agreed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to a lack of proper hearing opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and other Benches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee due to valid reasons like family health issues. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal held that to ensure natural justice, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares of M/s Alpha Graphics occurred on 02.07.2010, which falls under Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, not the AY 2012-13 under consideration. Therefore, the addition made in the current assessment year was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's representative agreed that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principles of natural justice due to a lack of proper hearing opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is a procedural requirement and is directory, not mandatory. As the report was filed before the intimation order was passed, the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80IA.