Loading ITAT cases…
248 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the land sale transaction was indeed an accommodation entry. Consequently, the seller should only be taxed on the admitted commission income, and the purchaser's cost of acquisition should be adjusted accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the land sale transaction was indeed an accommodation entry. Consequently, the seller should only be taxed on the admitted commission income, and the purchaser's cost of acquisition should be adjusted accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders for subsequent years were not based on merits due to the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the issue of disallowability of interest expenses was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the defect in Form 35A, being signed by the Authorized Representative due to the assessee's NRI status, was a curable irregularity under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and directed it to decide the objections on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and taken a plausible view by treating the undisclosed income as business income. The PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and, finding it necessary for proper adjudication, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the new evidence and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment for LNG purchase was covered by previous ITAT decisions in favour of the assessee, which were also accepted by the TPO in subsequent years. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn, following CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, as the tax effect was confirmed to be less than Rs.60 lakhs. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the request to invoke Section 150(1) of the Act did not arise, as CBDT Circulars issued under Section 268A are measures to reduce litigation and cannot be entertained at this stage. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not press it because the Department's appeal was dismissed on the low tax effect circular. Therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. The addition of Rs. 72,600/- under Chapter VI-A was deleted by the CIT(A) because it was based on an examination of the computation of income without any incriminating material. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's ground and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition under Section 50C, the Tribunal ruled that duly registered sale deeds, which were part of the assessee's regular disclosed transactions, do not constitute incriminating material in the absence of evidence of undisclosed income or intent to evade taxes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,38,87,550/-, finding the Revenue's contention that sale deeds were incriminating material to be untenable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in its entirety.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment for LNG purchase was covered by previous ITAT decisions in favour of the assessee, which were also accepted by the TPO in subsequent years. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and taken a plausible view by treating the undisclosed income as business income. The PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the AO's order and the CIT(A)'s order were at variance, and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no evidence to prove the accounts belonged to the assessee, and the addition was made on a protective basis without substantive evidence. Following a previous order for an earlier assessment year with similar facts, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee requested an opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim the GST amount as a deduction in its Profit & Loss Account, no disallowance under Section 43B was warranted. The disallowance was made without appreciating that the amount was not routed through the P&L account.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan. The issue of unexplained banking entries was also discussed, with a suggestion for further evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) is applicable at the stage of assessment for exemption under Section 11, not at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal also found no merit in the department's argument regarding non-compliance with document submission.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that no addition could be made as the genuineness of the sundry creditors was accepted in the remand report.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing principles of natural justice and the explanation for non-compliance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance of Rs. 2,000/- would suffice from the expenditure incurred in earning the exempt income, considering the dividend income and LTCG earned.
The Tribunal held that there is no due date prescribed by the PFRDA Act for NPS contributions. Since the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the department was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted proper inquiries. The amounts received under the VRS scheme and utilized for annuity policies were considered taxable salary income.
The tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without giving an opportunity to correct a curable defect violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash as per their books, supported by details of cash sales, realization from debtors, opening stock, and opening cash on hand. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee seeking an adjournment. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had discontinued operations and had not filed annual returns. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the submissions and evidence, including the affidavit filed by the Director.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated due to short notice for assessment and the assessee's inability to attend appellate hearings due to genuine reasons. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The circular applies retrospectively to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A as the conditions were satisfied and the AO was given an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to capital introduction and payments to related parties, finding that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence of excessiveness.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not adequately address the assessee's contentions or the submitted documents regarding the gift. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, detailed examination.
The Tribunal found that the time granted to the assessee to reply to the show cause notice was too short. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity for hearing and to examine the registration issue.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the premise for reopening was incorrect and the conditions under the proviso to Section 147 were not met. Consequently, the reopening was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and adopted a plausible view based on the submitted documents like the valuation report and bank statements. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the full deduction of Rs. 1 Crore as the investment was made within six months of the transfer and the Rs. 50 Lakhs cap per financial year was not applicable for the assessment year in question. The amendment introducing a total investment cap of Rs. 50 Lakhs was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits through increased cash sales, which is normal in the jewelry business. The Tribunal found no evidence of backdating entries or non-existent sales during the survey.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 269SS are attracted only if the loan or deposit is in the form of 'money', and gold metal falls outside this definition. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that there is no specific due date prescribed by the PFRDA Act for NPS contributions. Since the payments were made before the return filing deadline, they are allowable as a deduction under Section 43B(b).
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex parte and allowed the assessee's request to rely on a co-owner's case. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that merely incurring minor expenses on festivals does not automatically mean an assessee is engaged in religious activities, especially if its trust objectives do not state so. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for taxation under Section 115BAA. The clarification regarding donations to the PM CARES Fund indicates that such donations do not disqualify an assessee from opting for the concessional taxation regime.
The tribunal observed that both parties agreed that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation, especially since the assessee had only one source of income. Furthermore, the amendment to Section 115BBE came into force after the survey, making its invocation by the PCIT unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The AO had made inquiries regarding the ESOP expenses, and the issue was supported by judicial precedents allowing such expenses under Section 37.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the purchase of shares and their source. The AO and CIT(A) were justified in making the addition as the inception of the share purchase was doubted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details of office equipment to the AO. Relying on a previous decision for a similar issue, the Tribunal held that the office equipment should be classified as plant and machinery eligible for higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot substitute his opinion for that of the AO if the AO's view is legally plausible. Since the AO had made inquiries and taken a legally plausible view, the revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claims regarding expenses not claimed and those already self-disallowed, to avoid double disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details of office equipment to the AO. Relying on a previous decision for a similar issue, the Tribunal held that the office equipment should be classified as plant and machinery eligible for higher depreciation.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were not abnormal considering the assessee's business and the quantum of deposits. In the absence of contrary material from the Revenue, it was held that the deposits could be from the assessee's regular income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on unrelated facts and did not pertain to the assessee's case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.