Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial surrender was made to close proceedings without admitting expenses were bogus. The subsequent filing of returns with a lower amount, accepted by the AO, implied acceptance of the revised offer, and income not taxable under law cannot be taxed due to a misconception.
The Tribunal held that goodwill is an 'asset' under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act. Following previous decisions by the coordinate bench, High Court, and Supreme Court, the Tribunal ruled that depreciation is leviable on goodwill acquired through a slump sale.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a search, without corroborating material, does not have evidentiary value to sustain additions. The additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a search, without corroborating material, does not have evidentiary value to sustain additions. The additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a search, without corroborating material, does not have evidentiary value to sustain additions. The additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's statement during the search did not admit expenses were bogus, and the surrender was made for closure. The disallowance of 'route expenses' was not supported by corroborative material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a search, without corroborating material, does not have evidentiary value to sustain additions. The additions made by the AO and partly sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's reasons for the delay. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the condonation application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the explanation of Rs. 19,25,000 from vehicle sales due to defects in delivery notes, and also erred in not giving credit for agricultural income and cash withdrawals. The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 19,25,000 from vehicle sales to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing the impugned amount in the assessment year under consideration. Provisions of section 68 are applicable to current year's credits, not amounts advanced in previous years, and correct income must be taxed in the correct year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal in light of opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to reinstate if the scheme application is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the 6-year delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide belief that the CIT(A) had granted full relief and the significant delay by the AO in passing the order giving effect. The Tribunal found that the cash deposit addition was adequately explained and remitted the other issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased and non-existent assessee is invalid in law. The AO had information about the death of the assessee before passing the order, rendering the proceedings void.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. Given that the assessee claimed non-receipt of physical notices and unawareness of e-filing portal uploads, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Furthermore, since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1350 days in filing the appeal, noting that the revenue did not file a counter-affidavit and relying on various judicial pronouncements emphasizing substantial justice. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and relying on judicial precedents. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution, without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had responded to some notices and sought adjournments to file documents. Given the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's centre of vital interest remained in India due to property, investments, and the employer deducting TDS in India. Therefore, the benefit of the tie-breaker test was not available, and the US income was includable in India. However, credit for taxes paid abroad was directed to be granted.
The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. vs. ITO, which held that entities registered under the Souharda Act are to be considered as cooperative societies for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to provide one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks not carrying on banking business as defined by the Banking Regulation Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Corresponding interest costs should be allowed as deduction. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while furnishing Form 10 is mandatory, filing it by the due date of the return is a procedural requirement. Since the form was filed shortly after the intimation and before the assessment was finalized, the exemption should be allowed.
The ITAT noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, remitting the matter for re-examination. Considering the High Court's observations, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now paid the admitted tax. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. SSS Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that since the admitted tax has been paid, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A. For the back office charges, the Tribunal followed previous decisions in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A. For the back office charges, the Tribunal followed previous decisions in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO to submit details, and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the main grounds on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of additions and the opportunity to be heard were valid.
The Tribunal acknowledged the significant delay and the dismissal by the CIT(A) without condonation. However, considering the assessee's claim of dependency on their tax consultant and the missed notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, decided to grant one final opportunity. The assessee is directed to file a condonation petition with the CIT(A), who will consider it and decide the appeal's admission. The CIT(A) is also directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits subsequently.
The Tribunal held that if the investments made by the assessee with co-operative banks are out of compulsion as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and its rules, then the interest income earned from such investments would qualify as business income and be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. For claims under Section 80P(2)(d), the matter was restored to the AO to differentiate between income from co-operative societies and co-operative banks, considering the Apex Court's ruling.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was involved in litigation with the State Bank of India, which prevented them from responding to the CIT(A)'s notices. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is a procedural aspect and non-compliance should not deny TDS credit when the income is assessable in the hands of the firm. The credit of TDS should be granted to the person who has been subjected to tax.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO to submit details, and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the main grounds on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of additions and the opportunity to be heard were valid.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A. For the back office charges, the Tribunal followed previous decisions in favour of the assessee.
While deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO in the interest of justice and equity, granting one more opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition by 50% based on the totality of the situation and the need for cash for medical expenses. The Tribunal, after hearing submissions, found that the CIT(A)'s sustenance of 50% addition was not justified and in the interest of justice and equity, sustained an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, deleting the balance.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 within the due date is directory, not mandatory. It also noted that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the provisions of the Act, and the DTAA does not prescribe disallowance of FTC for non-compliance with procedural provisions.
The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The issue has been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that royalty cannot be separately benchmarked when the overall margin has been accepted as at arm's length. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that royalty cannot be separately benchmarked when the overall margin has been accepted as at arm's length. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in quashing the penalty proceedings. The notice issued under Section 274 did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied, rendering it defective.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash deposits belonged to a partnership firm, not the appellant personally, and that they had not submitted adequate proof of ownership of the bank account to the lower authorities. Given that the matter was decided ex-parte by the FAA, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the documents submitted by the assessee and had confirmed the AO's order without proper verification. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration of the submitted documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had exercised the option under Section 115BAA and filed the return within the due date. Subsequently, CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC for AY 2021-22, extending the due date. As the assessee filed Form 10-IC within the extended due date, it was considered eligible for the benefit of Section 115BAA.
The Tribunal found that the VAT authorities had waived penalties for earlier years, and this waiver order was not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for it. It also held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement and that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Income Tax Act's provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that income from credit facilities to members, including nominal members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the issue of deduction under Section 80P was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice was issued beyond four years and the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts. Furthermore, the reasons provided to the assessee for reopening differed from those presented to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of hire charges for the assessee's own trucks, finding no genuine expenditure. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for payments to third-party truck owners was set aside, as the agreement was for hiring vehicles, not for the carriage of goods, thus not attracting TDS provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the FAA had merely reproduced the AO's order and had not considered the assessee's objections or submissions. The Tribunal further observed that the AO also failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the filing of belated Form 10.