Loading ITAT cases…
211 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not declare agricultural income in earlier or subsequent years, this alone is not conclusive proof of no income. Considering the assessee and his family hold agricultural lands, it is reasonable to presume some agricultural income was generated. The AO's failure to make proper inquiry and rejection of the claim solely for lack of confirmation was not sufficient.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had remitted the amounts. As per the scheme's provisions, pending appeals are deemed withdrawn upon certificate issuance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations or evidence for the cash credits and salary deposits, even during appeal proceedings. The lower authorities' findings were confirmed due to the lack of substantiation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee held Section 12A registration and had filed supporting documents which the CIT(E) had not properly considered. The ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, allowing the assessee to submit additional documents.
The Tribunal held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court judgment. However, the Assessing Officer needs to verify other conditions for eligibility.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding merit in the assessee's submission that it was not fully aware of the rejection of its rectification requests and grievances. The matter was remitted back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 422 days, finding sufficient cause due to factors beyond the assessee's control. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 449-day delay in filing the appeal, subject to the payment of ₹5,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition solely based on information from the Commercial Tax Department without independent enquiry. The AO failed to demonstrate how specific purchases were bogus while accepting others, and the mere non-payment to creditors does not automatically render purchases bogus. Reliance was placed on a High Court decision stating that additions based on suspicion without independent enquiry are not justified.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application solely on the ground of a wrong code, without considering the merits of eligibility, is not justified. It relied on a CBDT circular and a High Court judgment emphasizing a liberal and purposive approach.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the Excel sheet and agent's documents, along with corroborating statements, constituted incriminating evidence of capitation fee collection. The presumption under Section 292C of the Act was rightly applied.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the Excel sheet and agent's documents, along with statements, constituted incriminating evidence of capitation fee collection. The presumption under Section 292C of the Act was rightly applied, and the quantification was based on seized materials and corroborative statements.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of demonstration expenses, noting that a coordinate bench had decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed a ground related to tax deduction at source, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the excel sheet and agent's documents, along with the statements of the cashier and agent, constituted incriminating evidence. The presumption under Section 292C of the Act was rightly applied, and the addition was based on corroborative evidence, not mere estimation.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the Excel sheet and agent's documents, along with unretracted statements, constituted incriminating evidence of capitation fee collection. The presumption under Section 292C was rightly applied, and the quantification of income was based on seized materials and corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of demonstration expenses, noting that a coordinate bench had decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed a ground related to tax deduction at source, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment related to interest on outstanding receivables back to the AO for fresh adjudication. It allowed the deletion of a double addition for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) and directed the AO to use the correct book profit for computing tax liability. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant MAT credit and TDS credit after verification and allowed the deduction under Section 80G for donations.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on the findings for AY 2019-20, which were agreed to be applied to AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. For AY 2019-20, the appeal of the assessee was decided in its favour, leading to the allowance of the assessee's grounds of appeal for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 regarding the addition of capitation fees. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised by the assessee for AY 2018-19 were identical to those for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20. Consequently, the grounds of appeal concerning the addition of capitation fees for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were allowed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's grounds challenging the validity of search proceedings, assessment orders under section 153A, and notices under section 153A were dismissed as infructuous because the merit of the case was decided in favour of the assessee. The issue regarding compliance with section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide the addition for AY 2020-21 in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, no direct or corroborative incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to that specific year. The Excel sheet lacked dates, making it impossible to correlate with AY 2017-18. Other materials had dates falling in FY 2019-20. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., stating that for unabated/completed assessments, additions under section 153A are impermissible without incriminating material for the year. Therefore, additions for AY 2017-18 were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. Regarding the disallowance of donation fees, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 12. While the CIT(A) denied the deduction for want of documentary evidence at the appellate stage, the assessee claimed the evidence was in the paper book. The Tribunal found that disallowing the donation merely for verification at the appellate stage was not sustainable, especially when the assessee produced complete evidence and the genuineness was not doubted in earlier years. Furthermore, the AO's basis for disallowance was cancellation of registration under section 12AA, not lack of documents. The CIT(A) changing the basis without an enhancement notice was also noted. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had rejected the application without specifying reasons and summarily. The Tribunal found that the temple provides food to over 10,000 people daily and engages in educational and developmental activities, is open to all without restriction, and had prior approval under section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the Excel sheet and statements from the cashier and agent, were incriminating and supported the addition of capitation fees. The Tribunal found that the facts for the current assessment years were distinguishable from earlier years where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the adjournment request of the assessee and dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to represent their case due to the short notice period. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including the Excel sheet and agent's documents, along with statements, constituted incriminating evidence of capitation fee collection. The AO's addition was based on these corroborated materials and not mere estimation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the scheme's form 4 was issued. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material, lack of valid satisfaction notes, non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2), and violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that Section 45(5A) of the Act, which deals with capital gains on JDAs, was not applicable as the agreements were executed before its effective date.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude two specific comparable companies (Infosys BPM Ltd. and Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd.) from the comparability analysis, allowing the assessee's ground regarding turnover filters. However, the Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude other suggested comparable companies (Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and MAA Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) as they were not part of the TPO's initial search matrix. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the set-off of current year losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made cash withdrawals exceeding the deposits, and the Revenue failed to prove the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of software expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a previous order where similar expenses were considered revenue if they enhanced efficiency rather than creating a capital asset. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection on MTM loss, remitting it to the AO for verification and adjudication based on newly filed evidence.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC and before the Tribunal. Relying on judicial pronouncements, it condoned the delay of 17 days and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 224 days, finding no malafide intention and a reasonable cause for the delay, prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal remitted the entire issue to the file of the AO for de-novo adjudication, imposing a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for not complying with the mandatory requirement of filing the tax audit report within the due date as per Section 44AB of the Act. The medical certificate produced was considered too distant from the due date and lacked corroboration, making the plea under Section 273B unacceptable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the scheme's form 4 was issued. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material unearthed during the search, not on confessions or extrapolations. Since no incriminating material was found for the year under consideration, and the only evidence was a retracted statement, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to improper approval obtained under Section 151 of the Act. The approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas the law required approval from a higher authority given the time elapsed since the assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT-A erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to ascertain facts regarding the joint development agreement, transfer of property, and capital gains. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's application for condonation and the fact that no admitted tax was due as no return was filed. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal remitted the issue of 80G approval back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, in light of a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessee's registration under Section 12AB, which had indicated that the activities had commenced.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, noting that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity by the CIT (Exemptions) and that the rejection order was passed without a proper show cause notice. The Tribunal found good reason to admit the evidence for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material unearthed during the search, not on confessions or extrapolations. Since no incriminating material was found for the year under consideration, and the only evidence was a retracted statement, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material unearthed during the search, not on confessions or extrapolations. Since no incriminating material was found for the year under consideration, and the only evidence was a retracted statement, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that sufficient cause was shown. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to violation of natural justice and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during search, not solely on confessions or extrapolations. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the facts and evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had started some activities and received donations. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the CSR expense of Rs. 17 lakhs in its tax computation statement, meaning it was not claimed as a business expenditure under Section 37. Subsequently, the assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80G for 50% of the donation.
The Tribunal held that the delay in remittance of PF/ESI contributions, even if short and beyond the assessee's direct control, would result in disallowance. The assessee's reliance on a grace period or a previous ITAT decision was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the issue requires re-examination by the Assessing Officer to verify if the income is attributable to transactions with members as defined under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. If associate/nominal members are not considered members for the Act's purpose, proportionate deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be granted, with corresponding cost benefits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to provide a final opportunity of being heard, which was a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh, directing the assessee to submit all necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were not barred by limitation. The service on Shri Munichandra, who was found to be the assessee's manager at an adjoining office, was considered valid, and the contention of improper service was rejected.