Loading ITAT cases…
130 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the additional cash payment of Rs. 35 lakhs to the seller. Consequently, this amount could not be considered for deduction under Section 54.
The PCIT alleged that the assessee had invested in an excess number of shares, leading to an unexplained cash credit and short levy of tax. The Tribunal found that the PCIT made factually incorrect observations regarding the share transaction and the amount paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and 9/2024, applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.
The CIT(Exemption) condoned the delay in filing Form 10B via an order dated 23/6/2023, and the assessment order was modified to reflect the returned income. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte even though it had become infructuous due to subsequent developments. Since the grievance of the assessee no longer survived, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) includes the highest rate of income tax and the highest rate of surcharge applicable to an individual, irrespective of the assessee's total income. The definition of MMR in Section 2(29C) mandates this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the additional ground without examining it on merits. The Supreme Court's decision in Goetze India Ltd. pertains to the powers of the AO, not the appellate authorities. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the basis of an installation certificate without proper verification was not sustainable. Regarding the differential value between invoice and capitalized amount, the matter was restored to the AO for further verification.
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the documents filed and that notices were issued with significant gaps. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have extended one more opportunity to the assessee for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be applied directly for calculating book profit under Section 115JB. However, disallowance related to exempt income needs to be made for book profit calculation. Since no specific mechanism was provided, an ad-hoc disallowance of 1% of the exempted income was directed.
The Tribunal held that cost of improvement is capital in nature and the fair market value should be based on the area as per the occupancy certificate. Regarding the security deposit, the Tribunal noted that an arbitration award determined it as compensation for shortfall in area and would be offered to tax in a later year.
The Tribunal held that cost of improvement is capital in nature and the fair market value should be based on the area as per the occupancy certificate. Regarding the security deposit, the Tribunal noted that an arbitration award determined it as compensation for shortfall in area and would be offered to tax in a later year.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed period as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Section 32AC deduction is covered against the assessee by previous ITAT orders. However, regarding Section 10AA, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee cannot be denied exemption for revised claims made during assessment by invoking Section 80A(5) and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for credit facilities to members and non-members was to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal found that the assessee's reliance on Circular No. 18/2015 was misplaced as it applied to societies governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which was not established for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on investments made by the cooperative society, even if for maintaining liquidity as per statutory requirements, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) as it is not attributable to the main business of providing credit facilities to its members.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity to present reasons for the delay, especially when indicated in Form 35, is not justified. Technicalities should not override substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is the owner of the property as per the sale deed and therefore liable for capital gains. The argument based on an earlier agreement by Shri Satyanarayan P. Raibagi was not accepted as the sale deed was executed by the assessee. The stamp duty value was considered correctly adopted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish complete details as required by the Assessing Officer for the sub-contractors, including nature of transaction, invoices, site addresses, and financial accounts. Mere submission of ledger accounts, TDS certificates, and banking details was insufficient to prove the genuineness of expenses. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the assessee should not suffer due to their counsel's mistake. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide details of notices served and failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6).
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and various judicial precedents, held that voluntary adjustments made pursuant to an APA are eligible for deduction under section 10AA. The proviso to section 92C(4) was found not to be a bar to such claims. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance under section 14A.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and various judicial precedents, held that voluntary adjustments made pursuant to an APA are eligible for deduction under section 10AA. The proviso to section 92C(4) was found not to be a bar to such claims. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance under section 14A.
The Tribunal noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the CPC passed a rectification order u/s. 154, allowing the deduction u/s. 80JJAA with a minor difference. As the Income Tax Department accepted the claim and there was no demand of income tax or grievance to the assessee, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that although the filing of Form 10DA was mandatory, its late filing was due to technical difficulties and the tax audit report was filed within the due date. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the mode and stage of filing are procedural aspects, and if the audit report is available before the assessment order is passed, the deduction cannot be denied.
The Tribunal held that in cases where technical considerations and substantial justice are in conflict, substantial justice should prevail. Citing the Apex Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal condoned the 50-day delay.
The Tribunal observed that the disallowance included employer's contributions, which were paid before the due date of filing the ITR and are eligible for deduction under Section 43B. The employer's contribution is not covered by the Checkmate Services judgment.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the assessee's appeal after providing multiple opportunities, as the assessee failed to comply or provide proper evidence. The ITAT noted that while the AO's addition was based on lack of evidence, the FAA also gave ample opportunities that were not utilized by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the CIT(A) and AO passed ex-parte orders. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Further, the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing Form 10B and directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances arising during the Covid-19 pandemic, including staff changes and the eventual discovery of the outstanding demand during a later audit. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay.