Loading ITAT cases…
82 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made a mistake apparent from the record by disallowing interest expenses, as the CIT(A) himself had admitted in his earlier order that the cinema building was constructed out of loans taken by the assessee and repaid by them. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's rectification application was non-speaking.
The Tribunal held that the income in question was diverted by an overriding title to DICGCI and thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, there was no prejudice to the revenue, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the assessee's TDS credit claim. The AO was directed to verify the corresponding income offered to tax for the short credit of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without properly considering the AO's findings regarding the lack of evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that software is part of computers and eligible for 60% depreciation. It also ruled that the expenses incurred for expanding the capacity of an existing unit are revenue expenses and not preliminary expenses under Section 35D.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify if the recipient had accounted for the income and paid tax. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that if the recipient has discharged their tax liability, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible. The issue regarding capital gains on land sale was remitted to the AO for referring the valuation to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by depositing surplus funds with banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it does not pertain to the business of providing credit facilities to members. The decision of the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the income in question was diverted by an overriding title to DICGCI and thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, there was no prejudice to the revenue, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the basis of the impugned order (reopening under Section 263) was quashed, the appeal and the Cross Objection had become infructuous. Therefore, both were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's logic flawed, stating that the assessee's explanation of cash sales for deposits was reasonable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was based on a Commissioner's order that was substantially vacated by the ITAT. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was significantly reduced, and the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally and with a justice-oriented approach. While acknowledging the significant delay, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation, considering his background and the circumstances, to be plausible.
The Tribunal held that SUDA's activities were for general public utility and did not constitute trade, commerce, or business, thus not attracting the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, SUDA was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 & 12.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were clearly loan accounts with only credit entries and no repayments, thus not qualifying as current accounts. The assessee failed to provide any material to substantiate that no violation of Section 269SS occurred.
The Tribunal held that uncommunicated intimations under Section 143(1) cannot be enforced and are invalid, as the onus is on the revenue to prove communication. Since the revenue failed to demonstrate communication of the intimation within the statutory period, the case was to be considered on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the revenue's appeal based on the assessee's availing of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment order under section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the additions as the Revenue lacked corroborative material beyond the information from the Sales Tax Authority. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, estimating the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Revenue's non-dispute of the settlement. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn to facilitate the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not dispute this. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn to allow the assessee to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefit was not availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains tax could not be levied in AY 2012-13 as the property was actually transferred and the sale deed was executed in AY 2013-14. The interest income issue was remitted to the AO for verification to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for reopening the assessment lacked a direct link between the seized material and the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the reopening was quashed, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening lacked a direct link between the seized material and the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the reopening and assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and that the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which enhanced the monetary limit for appeals. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for Revenue appeals. The appeal was dismissed based on low tax effect.
The Tribunal decided that since the quantum additions, which form the basis for the penalty, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty issue should also be remitted back. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the penalty after passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper reasons and without considering the assessee's evidence. The AO also appeared to have made additions without considering documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the additions as the Revenue lacked corroborative material beyond the information from the Sales Tax Authority. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, estimating the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits are not availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and that the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the additions as the Revenue lacked corroborative material beyond the information from the Sales Tax Authority. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, estimating the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal to avail benefits under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the Revenue had no objection, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, finding no merit due to the assessee's own failure to file the return in the correct format. The tax difference was considered small, and no indulgence was granted for this negligence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal to avail benefits under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition is an essential component for calculating capital gains. The AO should have worked out the estimated cost of acquisition, possibly by referring to the DVO for this purpose as well.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, finding no merit due to the assessee's own failure to file the return in the correct format. The tax difference was considered small, and no indulgence was granted for this negligence.
The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance of 20% was too high. Considering the nature and magnitude of the business, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 234E, relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Rajesh Kourani Vs. Union of India. The court held that Section 200A is a machinery provision and cannot override the charging provision of Section 234E.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It also granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the final settlement order under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee, having obtained relief as the additions were deleted and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, expressed no interest in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when additions/disallowances were made under normal provisions but tax was ultimately levied under MAT provisions (Section 115JB). This is supported by judicial precedents and CBDT circulars.