Loading ITAT cases…
253 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee, which was more than the exempt income, met the requirements of Section 14A. Therefore, no further disallowance by the Assessing Officer was warranted.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee voluntarily makes a disallowance under Section 14A that exceeds the exempt income, it meets the requirements of the section. The Tribunal also discussed the scope of Section 153A assessments following a search.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) due to the number of associate and nominal members, the Tribunal referred to its own decision in the case of Kavradi Co-operative Agricultural Bank (ITA No.93/Bang/2024). In that case, the Tribunal held that the AO has no jurisdiction to examine violations of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act; such matters are for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Tribunal also noted that the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, prescribes that nominal members should not exceed 15% of total members, and the assessee's nominal members were within this limit. The Tribunal further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, stating that the AO cannot disallow deduction or disqualify a society for dealing with nominal members if there is no prohibition under the Act, provided it is a registered co-operative society. Since the assessee is registered under the Karnataka Act, the deduction cannot be denied on these grounds. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's arguments and held that the AO's order was against the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted. The other grounds, including the status of local authority and interest under Section 234B, were not explicitly decided but were implicitly resolved by allowing the appeal and deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee voluntarily makes a disallowance under Section 14A that exceeds the exempt income, it meets the requirements of the section. The Tribunal also discussed the scope of Section 153A assessments following a search.
The Tribunal held that if the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee exceeds the exempt income, no further disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. The Tribunal relied on its own previous order and a High Court judgment in similar circumstances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities and that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying registration. It was noted that the assessee-society was created for the welfare of Canara Bank employees, and while benefits were for members, the dissolution clause stipulated that any surplus would be given to general public welfare institutions. The Tribunal also referenced judicial pronouncements emphasizing that registration depends on the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities, with issues of fee collection or commercial activity to be examined at the assessment stage.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal relying on High Court judgments, holding that it was not necessary to mention all objects in Form 10A as the AO could examine them during assessment. The Revenue appealed this order.
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act in a Writ Appeal. The Tribunal, being bound by the higher forum's decision, quashed the initiation of proceedings under section 147.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has presented an affidavit before them and has a strong case on merit regarding the claim for deduction under section 80IB(10), which has been allowed in previous years. The Tribunal also referred to High Court judgments emphasizing that meritorious cases should not be dismissed on technical grounds like limitation.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request for another opportunity to present their case. The matter was remitted to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order in the absence of the assessee's compliance, which was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found this to be a fit case to be re-visited at the CIT(A)'s level. However, considering that there was also no compliance during the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal decided against remanding the issue back to the CIT(A) as it would cause further delay. Instead, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary evidence and make compliance before the AO. The assessee was also directed not to seek any adjournment without just cause. Consequently, the issue was set aside to the file of the AO for necessary verification and fresh adjudication. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted a mismatch in facts between the assessee's claim of cheque deposits and the Revenue's assertion of cash deposits. Finding that the necessary facts needed verification, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue was decided in the case of Basaveshwaranagara Co-opera, where the AO was directed to verify if the interest/dividend was received from investments made with Cooperative Societies. If so, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d), or relief under section 57 if the income was treated as 'Income from other sources'. The Tribunal found the facts in the present case to be identical.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reason provided by the assessee due to the newly introduced faceless appeal scheme. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, emphasizing cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted a mismatch in facts between the assessee's claim of cheque deposits and the Revenue's assertion of cash deposits. Finding that the necessary facts needed verification, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee deserved an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant details and additional evidences to the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that Crossdomain Solution Ltd. should be excluded as it provides value-based quality services in fields like HF, Finance, Administration, and tax processes, falling within the ambit of KPO services, which are dissimilar to ITES. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions that excluded this company on grounds of functional incompatibility and KPO services. Similarly, MPS Limited was held to be engaged in KPO services, specifically typesetting, data digitization, content, and product development, which are not comparable to ITES. The Tribunal cited ITAT decisions that excluded MPS Limited on similar grounds, distinguishing between BPO and KPO services as defined under Rule 10TA of the Act. Regarding Hartron Communications Limited, the Tribunal noted that the DRP had directed its inclusion. The Tribunal found that the AO/TPO had exceeded their jurisdiction by not following the DRP's direction and therefore directed the AO/TPO to include Hartron Communications Limited while working out the ALP. The ground regarding the transfer pricing adjustment on trade receivables was dismissed as not pressed due to the minuscule amount. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to work out the tax liability after considering tax already paid and deductions under Chapter VI-A. The consequential issues were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order. The case was remanded back to the AO to verify the agricultural income and the cash deposits, considering the assessee's past agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not warranted. Regarding the R&D expenses, even if treated as capital in nature, they were eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(vi) of the Act, and depreciation under Section 32.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's remote location and lack of knowledge of tax proceedings. The Tribunal also directed the NFAC to admit the appeal concerning the addition made under section 68 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices, partly due to health reasons and business issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by NFAC and the order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the case was remitted back to NFAC to decide the issue after giving an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue had taken a contrary stand by treating only a part of the cash deposits as unexplained. The Tribunal found no clarity from the lower authorities regarding why only a portion was treated as unexplained and that the assessee had provided supporting documents for cash withdrawals. Since the cash withdrawals were not used for other purposes, it was presumed they were available for redeposit.
The Tribunal held that since the arbitration award determined the sale consideration and the assessee had no discretion to demand more, Section 43CA of the Act could not be applied. The consideration fixed by the arbitration award was to be accepted as the true consideration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the land was non-agricultural and the guidance value used by the revenue was for agricultural land. The Tribunal found that the issue required verification by the AO regarding whether the land was purchased at the guidance value.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the FAA, leading to an ex parte order. However, considering the assessee's claim and the need for a fair hearing, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intention. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal for non-furnishing of grounds of appeal, which consequently led to the penalty being confirmed. The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) for consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) wrongly relied on the Sharp Business Systems decision and failed to consider the termination agreement in its entirety. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined the purport of the CBDT Circular dated November 14, 2016. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication with liberty to the assessee to agitate all issues.
The Tribunal observed that the matter requires fresh adjudication. Therefore, the case is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee-firm had intimated its dissolution in 2013. It is settled law that an entity no longer in existence cannot be assessed. However, considering the peculiar facts, including the use of the firm's PAN and cash deposit during demonetization, the case requires fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that details regarding acquisition and sale deed were not submitted during assessment, leading to the disallowance of the cost of acquisition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to a lack of documents.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was 350 days, but condoned it based on the affidavit explaining the death of the main accountant and the COVID-19 illness of the newly appointed accountant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act and failed to ascertain if notices were properly served.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal held that it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the AO to bring the legal heir on record and adjudicate the matter afresh, providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intention. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the quantum appeal for non-furnishing of grounds of appeal, which consequently led to the penalty being confirmed. The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) for consideration on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have submitted cash book and bank statements, the lower authorities noted their absence. However, considering the paperbook contained these documents, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the capital contribution of partners cannot be treated as income of the firm. It found that the sources of funds for the disputed amounts were sufficiently explained through bank statements and loan documents, proving the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below failed to consider relevant CBDT circulars regarding the verification of demonetized cash deposits. The issue was remitted to the AO to verify sales made by the assessee that were deposited into bank accounts, considering applicable circulars.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) as the assessee had not filed a return of income. However, the issue regarding cash deposits during demonetization was remitted to the AO for verification, considering relevant CBDT circulars. Grounds 2 and 4 were allowed for statistical purposes, while ground 1 was considered general.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the assessee's serious medical condition as a sufficient reason. The appeals were admitted and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on sworn statements and unsubstantiated loose sheets, without corroborative material, are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that physical cash found during the search tallied with the books of account, indicating no unaccounted cash was unearthed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the assessee's serious medical condition as a sufficient reason. The appeals were admitted and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the AO's ground (b) was not supported by prior orders and was dismissed. Regarding grounds (a) and (c), the Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Citizen Cooperative Society case, noting that the present society's bye-laws permit loans to nominal members, unlike the former. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the society's bye-laws regarding the definition of 'member'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the assessee's serious medical condition as a sufficient reason. The appeals were admitted and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without properly verifying service of notices and without providing a reasoned order as mandated by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that no proper notice was issued for hearing. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee was directed to provide details explaining the delay, and the Ld.CIT(A) was instructed to consider it legally after granting a proper hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the COVID period and the medical grounds presented. The Tribunal noted that the assessee also failed to appear during assessment proceedings due to reasonable causes during the COVID period. Thus, the appeals were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee. The tribunal observed non-compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) and assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that provisions for standard assets are allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) if within the permissible limit. Since the CIT(A) found the eligible deduction was higher than claimed and the Revenue did not dispute this, the disallowance was rightly deleted.