Loading ITAT cases…
182 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to consider the fresh application filed by the assessee on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share trading transactions and the creditworthiness of the companies involved. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) were justified in making the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share trading transactions and the creditworthiness of the companies involved. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) were justified in making the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share trading transactions and the creditworthiness of the companies involved. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) were justified in making the addition.
The Tribunal held that as per the substituted Section 80AC, effective from Assessment Year 2018-19, deduction under Section 80P is only admissible if the return of income is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Since the assessee failed to meet this condition, the deduction cannot be allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the technical error that led to non-service of notices. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that as per the substituted Section 80AC, effective from Assessment Year 2018-19, deduction under Section 80P is only admissible if the return of income is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Since the assessee failed to meet this condition, the deduction cannot be allowed.
The tribunal recorded the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that while the trust is to be taxed as an Association of Persons (AOP) under Section 164(1) read with the first proviso, this deeming fiction cannot deny deductions under Chapter VI-A, as the beneficiaries are individuals. The TDS credit was also to be granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the possibility of glitches in the transition to new technology. It admitted additional evidence regarding peak credit and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, ensuring an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities, particularly the CIT(A), had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adequate opportunity. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal, while not adjudicating the grounds raised by the Revenue and the assessee, decided to first examine the issue of the AO's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2008-09. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and a coordinate bench's ruling in Ushaben Jayantilal Patel vs. ITO, the Tribunal noted that the six-year period for Section 153C proceedings is computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents by the AO of the non-searched person. Since the notice under Section 153C was issued on January 11, 2016, for AY 2008-09, it was beyond the permissible six-year period (AYs 2015-16 to 2010-11). The Tribunal held that this issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and, citing Supreme Court judgments in Common Wealth Trust of India Ltd., S. Nelliappan, and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., asserted its power to examine such questions of law arising from facts on record, even if not specifically raised by the parties, to ensure justice. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 153C for AY 2008-09 was quashed due to the AO's lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not decide the other grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the first ground of appeal, holding that the contention that search documents belonged to another party was not applicable to all documents, particularly pages 9 and 10 of Annexure AS-11, which detailed capital introduction and withdrawal by the assessee in various concerns. The Tribunal found that the documents specified certain transactions and that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked Section 153C after proper verification. Regarding the second ground, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessee had explained the transactions recorded in the books of account and corresponding income. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not doubted these accounted transactions and that the seized documents did not establish a nexus with unexplained transactions, nor did they pertain to any transaction relating to the assessee. Consequently, the addition of Rs.1,25,000/- was deleted. For the third ground, the Tribunal also allowed the appeal, stating that the alleged excess deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A was justifiable and could be verified from the assessee's books. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim for deduction to be quantifiable. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case (AUDA), held that the assessee's activities are for general public utility and eligible for exemption. For the assessment years in question, the Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's issue to consider it in accordance with the Supreme Court's law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the matters on merit and violated principles of natural justice by not considering additional evidence and submissions. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the matters on merit and violated principles of natural justice by not considering additional evidence and submissions. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the assessee to file additional evidence and in not considering it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the property investment, particularly concerning the source of funds and the genuineness of loan transactions. Therefore, the PCIT's order assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the matters on merit and violated principles of natural justice by not considering additional evidence and submissions. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted the additional evidence as the assessee could not file all evidence before the AO due to circumstances beyond control. Regarding unexplained investments in Sakar VII and land, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided documentary evidence, including sale deeds and payment details, which were verified by the CIT(A), and thus dismissed the Revenue's grounds. For unexplained cash credit, the Tribunal noted that the assessee provided details of identity and creditworthiness before the CIT(A), leading to deletion of the addition, and dismissed the Revenue's ground. On the proprietor capital account, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that while the difference in opening balance was not reconciled, other entries were accepted as reflected in audited accounts, dismissing the Revenue's ground. Regarding unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) had granted partial relief, considering the cash deposit derived from agricultural activities, and dismissed the Revenue's ground. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning agricultural income treated as income from other sources. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For the assessee's cross-objection, grounds 2 and 3 were not pressed. Ground 1 regarding agricultural income was dismissed as the CIT(A) had made a categorical finding. Ground 4, concerning the ad hoc disallowance of 50% of expenditure, was partly allowed, with the Tribunal restricting the disallowance to 25% of the expenditure, considering the totality of facts and the lack of supporting evidence before the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Department failed to provide evidence that the assessee earned commission by lending his PAN. The brokerage firm confirmed the mistake and that Uttam Nakrani HUF conducted the trades, discharging the assessee's onus.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case (AUDA), held that the assessee's activities are for general public utility and eligible for exemption. For the assessment years in question, the Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's issue to consider it in accordance with the Supreme Court's law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely based on email notices when the assessee had specifically requested no email communication. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Given the withdrawal request, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the violation of RBI notifications regarding demonetized currency does not automatically attract Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessee explained the nature and source of the deposits from its members and ceased collecting old notes after the RBI clarification, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation after the case was reopened. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was not tenable as there was no lack of inquiry by the AO, and the PCIT could not substitute his own view without new adverse material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee argued that the addition was based on misreporting in the audit report and that a substantial portion of the payments were made on time. The Tribunal found merit in allowing the assessee to present detailed evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a developer of infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was admissible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented substantial documentary evidence for the first time before it. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the facts presented and the ex-parte order by the CIT(A). It was decided that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration to ensure justice.
The Tribunal held that the late filing of Form 67 should not be a reason to deny the benefit of the DTAA when taxes were paid in the foreign country. The assessee cannot be taxed twice on the same income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the possibility of technical glitches during the transition to digital processes. The CIT(Exemption)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh determination with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the possibility of technical glitches during the transition to digital processes. The CIT(Exemption)'s orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh determination with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC based on a CBDT circular allowing such condonation for AY 2021-22. The AO was directed to re-compute the tax liability under Section 115BAA, provided the assessee complied with the circular's conditions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating one of the grounds of appeal. The appeal was therefore remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking, non-reasoned, and violated principles of natural justice by not deciding the appeal on merits. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's observation regarding the non-submission of Form 10CCB was incorrect. Furthermore, since the original assessment was based on the same grounds, the reassessment was deemed invalid due to a change of opinion.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2014-15, it held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to a change of opinion. For AY 2017-18, it followed Gujarat High Court decisions confirming that interest and dividend from cooperative banks registered under the Cooperative Societies Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The penalty notice was also found to be vague.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not debit the service tax amount in its Profit & Loss Account nor claimed any deduction for it, the disallowance under Section 43B was not sustainable. The service tax was also subsequently paid.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2014-15, it held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to a change of opinion. For AY 2017-18, it followed Gujarat High Court decisions confirming that interest and dividend from cooperative banks registered under the Cooperative Societies Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that amounts credited to the sales account cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 if they are already included in declared sales. The AO did not reject the books of accounts or question quantitative details, and failed to provide conclusive evidence of accommodation entries.