Loading ITAT cases…
144 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in a similar case (Bangalore Development Authority), held that the assessee's activities as a statutory authority fulfilling public duties, even with fee collection, do not constitute trade or business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked if the assessee has not maintained any books of account. Furthermore, subsequent additions made by the AO, which were not part of the original reasons for reopening, are also not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and sought to withdraw the appeal. The DR had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to revive them if the VSVS settlement was not finalized. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal after the assessee submitted a rectification order from the Assessing Officer and the Department had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that while section 80P(2)(d) allows deduction for interest/dividend from a co-operative society, it's not clear if the interest payer was a co-operative bank registered with RBI. The issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of the nature of the payer bank and the allowance of cost of funds.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not granted a meaningful opportunity by the AO. The CIT(A) also failed to deal with the assessee's contentions judiciously.
The Tribunal observed that the AO's finding about non-commencement of activities was not supported by evidence and that email correspondences with Tata Memorial Centre for cancer patient relief indicated commenced activities. The Tribunal held that these documents were not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue was decided in its own case for a prior assessment year. Following that precedent, the Tribunal directed that the corresponding expenses incurred against the interest income should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with liberty to revive them if the VSVS settlement was not finalized. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 1206 days, noting shared responsibility between the assessee and the NFAC for the delay and dismissal. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from statutory deposits mandated by the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act should be considered operational income eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO is directed to re-examine the taxability and quantum of deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues, as supported by medical reports. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and Form-2 has been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose and the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and Form-2 has been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose and the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the requisite Form 56F before the due date and the revised return did not alter the deduction claimed. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 10AA.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and Form-2 has been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose and the appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal noted that both parties had no objection to dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the dispute is not settled under DTVSVS. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1110 days, observing that the department sent notices to an incorrect email address and lacked proof of service. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 25.3.2022, holding it not tenable in law as the same issues were subsequently assessed in the order dated 29.5.2023. The assessee was given liberty to question the additions on merits in the pending proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Additional CIT/CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating all grounds of appeal and in passing an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Additional CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance and non-pursuing the appeal. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. Considering the assessee's prayer for another opportunity and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the quantum of funds applied for charitable purposes is not a pre-condition for granting registration, and the CIT(E) should have conducted a thorough inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. The mere fact of meagre expenditure does not render the trust non-genuine.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeals, supported by Form-2 certificate and payment of disputed penalty. The DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested withdrawal of the appeals, supported by Form-2 certificate and payment of disputed penalty. The DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the denial of foreign tax credit solely due to the belated filing of Form 67 is not mandatory, especially when the assessee is otherwise eligible and has pursued remedies. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the additions to the income, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a prior order of the ITAT, the penalty imposed under section 271AAB of the Act is unsustainable and must be revoked. The AO is directed to delete the penalty in its entirety.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record reasons indicating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, which is a prerequisite for initiation after four years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the denial of foreign tax credit solely due to the belated filing of Form 67 is not mandatory, especially when the assessee is otherwise eligible and has pursued remedies. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach in selecting comparable companies for the Distribution/MSD, SWD, and TSS segments lacked transparency and clarity. The exclusion of companies without detailed FAR analysis and justification raised concerns about the reliability of the benchmarking process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue of selection of comparables and computation of ALP to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. The TPO was directed to conduct a detailed FAR analysis, provide reasoned orders for selection/exclusion of comparables, and grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. For the issue of interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal held that the appropriate rate of interest shall be LIBOR + 200 basis points, following precedents from its own coordinate benches and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the AO/TPO to compute interest on delayed receivables at LIBOR + 200 basis points. The issue of adjustment for working capital and risk was also set aside to the TPO for fresh adjudication. Grounds related to penalty proceedings under Section 270A and interest under Sections 234B and 234C were dismissed as premature or consequential.
The Tribunal held that interest income from compulsory deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it arises from the assessee's business. For interest income not from compulsory deposits, deduction under Section 57 is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to give effect to the revised directions of the DRP and the TPO's revised order. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the entire transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of software development and IT-enabled services.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from deposits made with the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vijayapura, which were mandated by the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Sections 57(2) and 58), should be considered operational income derived in the course of the assessee's business and consequently qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that these statutory compulsions restrict the society's ability to freely use or withdraw these funds for its business operations, distinguishing it from voluntary investments. The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench orders in Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd. and Bharat Co-operative Credit Society. The AO was directed to examine whether the interest income was out of compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and if so, to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Without prejudice, the Tribunal also directed that if any investment exceeded the statutory limit and was classified as 'Income from Other Sources', the corresponding cost incurred in earning such income must be deducted. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from statutorily mandated deposits with the District Cooperative Bank should be considered operational income and qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of computing the quantum of deposits and allow the corresponding deduction.
The Tribunal held that the appellate order suffered from procedural irregularities as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-2 under the VSV Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the VSV Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the adjustment was based on an inadvertent error in the tax audit report and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case on merits due to the earlier dismissal on grounds of delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-2 under the VSV Scheme, indicating the dispute was being resolved. The appeal was therefore dismissed as no purpose would be served by keeping it pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory, not mandatory. Denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely for a procedural lapse like delayed filing of Form 67 defeats the purpose of relief from double taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had sufficiently explained the nature and source of the cash deposits as business receipts. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal.