Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 5 of 6
The tribunal held that interest on GST and late filing fees are compensatory and allowable deductions under Section 37. It also found that additions based on an unsigned excel sheet without corroborative evidence are unsustainable. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal after the Departmental Representative confirmed no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. For A.Y. 2016-17, the appeal was allowed. For A.Y. 2020-21, the matter was remanded for verification of the source of interest income.
The Tribunal held that GST is a statutory liability and not part of income, and thus TDS should not have been deducted on the GST component. The CPC acted beyond its jurisdiction in making the adjustment under section 143(1). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the primary issues. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment (de-novo).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing cross-objections due to the assessee's age and health. For the addition on account of unexplained income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. For the addition on account of suppression of income, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% profit reasonable and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this point. For the AY 2014-15, the Tribunal set aside the addition related to suppression of income to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant and erroneously rejected the application based on a minor technicality, ignoring the trust's prior registration.
The Tribunal held that the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Shri Narayan P. Ahuja was satisfactorily established in terms of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and thus the addition related to it was deleted. However, for the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Supreme Gold, the Tribunal found a lack of complete documentation and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, resulting in ex-parte orders without adjudication on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to verify all relevant facts and decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully and furnish necessary details. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal is imposed on the assessee for repeated non-compliance before the lower authorities. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to ex-parte orders without adjudication on merits. Both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the matter was not decided on merits and suggested restoration to the AO. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to verify all relevant facts and decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The assessee is directed to cooperate fully. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal on the assessee for repeated non-compliance. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, engaged in the business of trading vegetables and fruits, cannot be expected to maintain impeccable records like a corporate. The CIT(A) had ignored cash withdrawals and total transactions while doubting only the demonetization period deposits. The Tribunal found that the deposits made during demonetization, amounting to Rs. 11.83 lakhs, could be treated as part of the regular business.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the wrong premise that the amounts were offered to tax and verified by the Department. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to determine if the persons concerned accepted the amounts and whether taxes were paid on them.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the JCIT(A) solely on the ground of limitation was incorrect, especially considering the delay was only 27 days and the assessee is a charitable trust. Meritorious cases should not be dismissed on limitation grounds without examining the merits.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the submissions filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly analyzed the share transactions and relied on an investigation report without independent verification. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions based on the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the credit card expenditure.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. It was also held that the assessed income should not exceed the net income as per the income and expenditure account.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found no infirmity in the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage and agreed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions related to unsecured loans, interest, sundry creditors, and estimated net profit after considering remand reports and available evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the gross delay and the assessee's consistent failure to act diligently and rectify defects. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and casual approach throughout the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was unjustified in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted that the investment in immovable property was not made in the impugned year, yet the CIT(A) rejected the evidences without proper consideration. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) was not leviable as the relevant section for delayed filing of TDS returns after July 1, 2012, was Section 271H, and the penalty levied was under an inapplicable section. The penalty under Section 271C was also challenged on various grounds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) was not leviable as the relevant section for delayed filing of TDS returns after July 1, 2012, was Section 271H, and the penalty levied was under an inapplicable section. The penalty under Section 271C was also challenged on various grounds.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem) is bad in law. Therefore, the intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore, leading to the additional payment, was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance of labour charges was made on estimation basis without considering the labour register. To conclude the litigation, the disallowance was restricted to 6% instead of 10%.
The Tribunal condoned the 86-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the period immediately after the Covid-19 Pandemic. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the assessee entered into any transaction with M/s Hariram Jagdish Prasad. The assessee provided explanations and bank statements, but the Revenue did not provide cogent evidence, and the reassessment proceedings also suffered from procedural irregularities.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by relying on CBDT Circular No. 25 of 2015, which states that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the tax payable on total income is less than the tax payable on book profits under Section 115JB, for periods prior to 01-04-2016.
The Tribunal held that the AO had erred in not including Nimbus Pipes Ltd. as a comparable company, despite the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) finding it qualitatively comparable. The AO reiterated the TPO's adjustment without considering Nimbus Pipes Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider the documents filed with the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of the details and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) was not leviable as the relevant section for delayed filing of TDS returns after July 1, 2012, was Section 271H, and the penalty levied was under an inapplicable section. The penalty under Section 271C was also challenged on various grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and demonstrated the usage of these funds for acquiring capital assets through bank statements. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was initiated beyond four years and the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus to prove that the assessee had not disclosed all information truly and fully, as required by the proviso to Section 147. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for 'concealment of particulars of income' but the penalty order was levied for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. This inconsistency in the AO's satisfaction rendered the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider the documents filed with the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of the details and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-cooperation, lack of appearance, and failure to provide satisfactory explanations for the unexplained credits. Given the assessee's conduct and the lack of substantive engagement with the case, the Tribunal found no reason to grant further opportunities.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the Learned CIT(E) for de-novo consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of inadvertent non-compliance and the fact that certain documents were filed along with Form 10AB. The revenue did not object to the restoration. The Tribunal's reasoning was that restoring the matter would allow for a proper examination of the assessee's application and the submitted documents. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses, especially when inadvertent and when the revenue does not object to a second chance, should not necessarily lead to the outright rejection of a charitable trust's application for registration, provided the assessee commits to future compliance. The operative direction is to restore the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also noted that if there is further non-compliance by the assessee, the CIT(E) would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders based on the available material. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided an explanation that the cash represented savings from previous years. While the AO and CIT(A) were not satisfied, the Tribunal found that the explanation, coupled with the fact that the cash was found at the assessee's residence, warranted further consideration. The Tribunal observed that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the cash was undisclosed income. Since the Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the assessee was plausible and not dislodged by the revenue, it directed the deletion of the addition. The ratio of the decision is that if an assessee provides a reasonable explanation for unexplained cash found at his residence, and the revenue fails to disprove it, the addition cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The AO failed to conduct further investigation into the source of the funds, making the addition based on conjecture. Therefore, the addition made under section 68 of the Act was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. It was also held that the assessed income should not exceed the net income as per the income and expenditure account.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. It was also held that the assessed income should not exceed the net income as per the income and expenditure account.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. It was also held that the assessed income should not exceed the net income as per the income and expenditure account.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) was not leviable as the relevant section for delayed filing of TDS returns after July 1, 2012, was Section 271H, and the penalty levied was under an inapplicable section. The penalty under Section 271C was also challenged on various grounds.
The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is not covered under Section 244A(1)(a) or (aa) as it is neither advance tax nor self-assessment tax. Therefore, interest on refund of excess DDT falls under the residual clause of Section 244A(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that Section 43CB of the Act is applicable only to construction contracts and not to real estate developers who construct and sell units on their own land. The assessee correctly followed Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) for revenue recognition upon transfer of ownership.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) misunderstood basic accounting principles. Advances for land and WIP are distinct and unrelated, and there was no escapement of income. The reopening was based on ignorance of accounting and failed to establish a case for escaped income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee had duly recorded the cash sales in its books, supported by stock registers and VAT returns, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of these transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under section 263 was bad in law as it was passed without proper service of notice to the assessee. The notices were allegedly sent electronically but not to the assessee's registered email addresses, rendering the proceedings void.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year. It was also held that the assessed income should not exceed the net income as per the income and expenditure account.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was infructuous as the Department conceded the issue. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the TDS credit as per Form 26-AS, and directed the AO to verify and grant the credit.