Loading ITAT cases…
321 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal held that while the AO had conducted relevant inquiry on the transfer of fixed assets, the PCIT's action regarding cash deposits was justified due to insufficient verification by the AO. The revision order was set aside for other issues.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to establish exclusive business use of borrowed funds, a complete disallowance was not justified. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 1,14,662/- on a pro-rata basis.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption and consequential relief.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce relevant documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal found that the AO primarily accepted the contribution from the father and brother. Considering the smallness of the disputed amount, the addition was not justified and ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question was indeed incurred and taxed in subsequent assessment years (2017-18 and 2018-19). Therefore, no further addition was required for AY 2016-17, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the reasons provided warranted a hearing on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not a genuine contribution eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. Mere payment through banking channels and production of receipts were insufficient to override evidence that the recipient political party was engaged in providing accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the company on a business trip, even if not considered a business expenditure, does not constitute income or a perquisite in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted a CBDT circular that condoned delays for applications filed within a specific period. Since the assessee's application fell within this period, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of Foodlink shares was supported by documentary evidence, including a SEBI PMS registration, account statements, and a valuation report. Therefore, the sale proceeds could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68, and the long-term capital loss was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption and consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption and consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was likely due to the compulsion of demonetization, not necessarily indicative of undisclosed income. The assessee's explanation of cash sales and comparison with previous years' data supported the genuineness of the cash.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay was not sufficient. Mere omission or oversight, even considering the pandemic, did not constitute a valid ground for condoning such a prolonged delay without demonstrating due diligence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a trader and has established sales, and there's no allegation of purchases from unaccounted sources, only the profit element in the purchases can be added, not the entire amount. The addition was restricted to 10% of the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular on jewellery limits should be applied in spirit even if the search was by ACB, and that cash deposits from a genuine land sale agreement were not unexplained. However, the reassessment proceedings were not quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the accountant's alleged negligence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the reassessment proceedings conducted by the NFAC were validly resumed by the JAO. However, it found that the addition under Section 69A and the disallowance under Section 80C were not warranted based on the evidence provided.
For AY 2021-22, the tribunal held that while the new tax regime option was invalid due to belated filing, the assessee was entitled to Chapter VI-A deductions under the old tax regime. For AY 2022-23 and 2023-24, the tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE once is sufficient for subsequent years, and the returns should be treated under the new tax regime.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee bore the entire improvement expense, it was for the entire property. Therefore, the deduction for capital gains should be limited to the assessee's proportionate share of ownership, as the benefit of improvement accrued to the property as a whole.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) applies only to expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since the assessee merely facilitated the flow of funds and did not incur these amounts as expenditure, the disallowance was incorrect.
For AY 2021-22, the tribunal held that while the new tax regime option was invalid due to belated filing, the assessee was entitled to Chapter VI-A deductions under the old tax regime. For AY 2022-23 and 2023-24, the tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE once is sufficient for subsequent years, and the returns should be treated under the new tax regime.
For AY 2021-22, the tribunal held that while the new tax regime option was invalid due to belated filing, the assessee was entitled to Chapter VI-A deductions under the old tax regime. For AY 2022-23 and 2023-24, the tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE once is sufficient for subsequent years, and the returns should be treated under the new tax regime.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the AO's satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions for verification and the restricted disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to an improper approval under Section 151 for issuing a notice beyond three years. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the donation was not genuine, as investigations revealed the political party was involved in providing accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the DCF method for share valuation and that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was unsustainable. It also held that the addition under Section 69C was incorrect as the expenditure was accounted for and paid through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT validly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction as the AO's inquiry was not adequate. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the failure to properly examine the commission expenditure and TDS liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and the accountant's alleged negligence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the investigation material, statements, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party overwhelmingly demonstrated that the donation was an accommodation entry, not a genuine contribution. Mere banking transactions and receipts were insufficient to prove genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source due to the interim directions of the Madras High Court. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted additional grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings, finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years and the escaped income was below the threshold limit specified in Section 149(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the donation, as the recipient political party was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries. Mere banking transactions and receipts were insufficient to override the evidence of the party's modus operandi.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the political donation, as investigation revealed the recipient political party was involved in providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction under section 80GGC.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's absence from India and communication issues. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the additional evidence. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and the disallowance, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The obligation to deduct tax at source yielded to binding judicial orders.
The Tribunal held that in a presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD, the disclosed turnover encompasses all business receipts, and the net profit rate accounts for all expenses. Therefore, the addition of purchases as unexplained expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the format in Circular 19/2015 was not mandatory, declarations under Section 194C(6) must contain essential details like freight charges and carriage registration numbers. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to apply the peak credit theory, acknowledging the fund circulation evident from bank statements and cash book. However, it provided further directions for calculating the final addition, including credit for opening balance and net agricultural receipts.
The Tribunal held that Form No. 10 was filed before the extended due date for filing the return of income, making the accumulation claim valid. It also ruled that the substantive claim for exemption could not be denied due to procedural delay in filing the audit report (Form 10BB) when it was available before the completion of proceedings.
The tribunal upheld the addition of capital gains, finding the transactions to be bogus accommodation entries, similar to previous rulings. However, the tribunal remanded the issue of capital loss calculation back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as it was not properly addressed.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, with retrospective effect. It directed the AO to verify if the recipients had offered the income to tax and to delete the disallowance if confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the right to litigate is not a capital asset, and thus the consideration received for its assignment is taxable as 'Income from Other Sources'. It also upheld the disallowance of deductions and exemptions claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.