Loading ITAT cases…
111 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Interest earned from commercial banks should be treated as income from other sources and relief granted under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable as the assessee failed to demonstrate that the purchaser participated in common funds and was entitled to surplus. However, it agreed that only net capital gains, not the entire sale consideration, should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was not justified as the NFAC failed to provide specific details of the mismatch and arbitrarily disallowed the entire expenditure. The enhancement of GP on opening stock was also deleted as it amounted to double taxation and was not proposed in the show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly allowed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the NFAC for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO breached mandatory CBDT instructions by not making a timely reference to the TPO. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking Section 263 to set aside the assessment for a fresh reference to the TPO was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits, solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal noted that penalties are consequential to quantum assessments, which were still pending before the CIT(A) after a remand from the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below did not verify the cash deposit in its proper perspective and that the AO needs to examine the transaction in light of CBDT circulars regarding demonetization period deposits. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity and the interest of justice, decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that belated remittance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI would not be taxable if paid before the due date of filing the return. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence for the availability of cash for 31 months and that the money was withdrawn shortly after deposit. While acknowledging the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 2,50,000, confirming the rest of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the valuation reports obtained from the Departmental Valuation Officer. The value determined by the Valuation Officer is binding and should be adopted for calculating capital gains.
The tribunal corrected a statement in its previous order. It clarified that the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions due to a lack of proper explanation from the assessee, not the other way around.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the issue needs to be adjudicated afresh by the AO after granting a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from software and support services were not taxable in India as royalty or fees for technical services. This was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case, which found that the services did not meet the 'make available' criteria under the India-UK DTAA.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It further held that since the assessment and appeal orders were passed ex-parte without the assessee's participation, the issues should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, holding that the rectification application was within the time limit as per Section 154(7) of the Act, counting the period from the last response from the department. The issue was remitted to the AO for verification of the claim.
The Tribunal found that the bifurcations of deposits were not provided to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's remote location and lack of awareness. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims, subject to costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's remote location and lack of awareness. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims, subject to costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's remote location and lack of awareness. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims, subject to costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's remote location and lack of awareness. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate claims, subject to costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest income from investments with Central Co-operative Banks to the AO to examine if it was out of compulsion under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, in which case it would be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deduction for the cost of funds for interest income assessed under 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, without any allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, is bad in law. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not rely on fresh evidence but directed the AO to verify details already filed with the return. The CIT(A)'s order to verify Form 10B and then decide on the addition was found to be correct and in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is not a co-operative bank and the definition of 'member' under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal and associate members. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. supports this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the interest income from investments with co-operative banks/scheduled banks is to be assessed under 'income from other sources'. However, the assessee is entitled to a deduction for the cost of funds and proportionate expenses incurred in earning this interest income.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were likely out of business receipts, considering the assessee's illiteracy and her husband's management of the business. The cash deposits were taxed at the presumptive rate of 8%.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded valid satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, as the seized documents clearly belonged to the assessee. The levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also upheld as consequential.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Assessing Officer. This was subject to the payment of costs and the assessee's undertaking to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age and lack of familiarity with digital procedures. On merits, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the prior period expenses were not allowable as the assessee, following the mercantile system, failed to provide any evidence for the accrual of these expenses in the prior year. The cash payment for the partner's daughter's PPF was also disallowed as it was a personal expense and not incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's grounds of appeal were misplaced as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the issue of deduction for interest income from co-operative banks. The CIT(A) had only directed proportionate deduction for credit facilities to members.
The Tribunal held that since no addition was made in the earlier years for these outstanding advances, and the AO had not made any addition in a subsequent year after a prior tribunal order restored the matter, the AO was not justified in imputing notional interest in the current assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present her case, as the ex-parte order was passed due to non-receipt of notices by the representative.
The Tribunal held that since no addition was made in the earlier years for these outstanding advances, and the AO had not made any addition in a subsequent year after a prior tribunal order restored the matter, the AO was not justified in imputing notional interest in the current assessment years. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had overlooked the submissions and details provided by the assessee regarding cash sales and closing cash balance. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's non-response but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Act and Rules, and disallowing FTC for a procedural delay is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that while the COVID-19 period suspension of limitation might have extended the time for passing the penalty order, the initiation of penalty proceedings itself was beyond a reasonable time. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that it is appropriate to remit the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to produce all details regarding the source of the bank deposits to the satisfaction of the AO.
The Tribunal held that the receipts of Rs.106,45,39,629/- from the sale of software are not taxable in India as royalty. The Tribunal reasoned that the DRP's decision to tax the amount as royalty solely to keep the issue alive pending a review petition before the Supreme Court was incorrect. It emphasized that a review petition does not obliterate the ratio laid down in a judgment, which remains binding until an order on review is passed. Therefore, following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Ltd. (supra), the additions were deleted. Regarding the cross-charges of Rs.2,67,77,488/-, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, following its own previous orders for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, directing the AO to examine whether these amounts represent reimbursement of expenses. Grounds related to interest under Sections 234A and 234B were dismissed as consequential and rendered infructuous. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the violation of natural justice. While the assessee claimed the reasons for reopening were not provided, no documentary evidence was produced to show a request was made to the AO. The assessee also admitted to cooperating with the assessment proceedings and did not challenge the AO's jurisdiction or the notice under Section 148. The AO had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment due to the failure to return capital gains from property sale. Regarding the capital gains, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' finding that the gain was short-term. Although a sale agreement existed from December 16, 2005, the deed of apartment was executed on September 22, 2008, and the property was sold on February 22, 2011. The Tribunal noted that at the time of the sale agreement, the building was not complete, and substantial consideration was not paid. The period of holding from the deed of apartment (September 22, 2008) to the sale deed (February 22, 2011) was less than three years, thus correctly treated as short-term capital gain. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 80IB(10) regarding allotment restrictions were prospective. Therefore, the restrictions did not apply to transactions entered into before their effective date.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to represent its case before the lower authorities and considering its prayer for another opportunity, remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to represent its case before the lower authorities and considering its prayer for another opportunity, remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.