Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the cash deposited was largely from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account and thus available for redeposit. A small portion of the deposit, Rs. 3,85,485, was considered potentially not sourced from withdrawals, but this amount could be financed by the husband's substantial income.
The Tribunal held that additions made on account of cash deposits and difference in VAT sales were unsustainable. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence like ledger accounts and sample bills to support the cash receipts from sundry debtors.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not properly considered the assessee's explanation and supporting documents. Citing a previous order where a similar delay was condoned, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the AO for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the credits were from customers for tyre sales and the advance payment was for tyre purchases. Therefore, the entire amount should not be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal estimated the profit on these transactions at 8%.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from statutory reserves and members' funds, arising from the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Provisions for interest and NPAs made according to prudential norms were also allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the cash deposits were recorded in the assessee's regular books of account, supported by documentation, and no defects were found in the audited books. The mere inclusion of specified bank notes did not invalidate the receipts.
The Tribunal deleted the addition u/s. 69A, finding the explanation for cash deposits to be valid and properly sourced. It also allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA, noting that similar claims were allowed in subsequent years and the AO himself allowed it in a later scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO had made inquiries and taken a plausible view, which was not unsustainable in law. Therefore, the PCIT's order under section 263 was annulled.
The Tribunal held that the bonus details were available before the CIT(A) and were consistent with salary payments. The CIT(A) also failed to properly consider additional evidence. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members. The Tribunal followed decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that were factually closer to the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is business income attributable to the society's core activity. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court decisions that supported the assessee's claim.
The tribunal held that the assessee likely did not receive the notices from the CIT(A) as they were not sent to the specified address. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) on profits attributable to its eligible business, even with nominal members, and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction. The issue of provision for expenditure was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. The addition for cash deposits was also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of member details and KYC.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from cooperative banks is attributable to the assessee's business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities. Conflicting High Court decisions were reconciled by following the one closer to the assessee's facts.
The Tribunal held that the ex gratia received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the interest income is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members and is therefore eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee's claim for deduction is allowed.
The Tribunal held that sustaining a disallowance on a new legal ground (section 80A(5)) by the CIT(A) without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity to the assessee violates principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the minimal delay and the senior citizen status of the Managing Trustee. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remitted back for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income from cooperative banks and staff loans is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to the assessee's business of providing credit facilities. However, e-stamping commission is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that nominal members are considered members of a cooperative society, and therefore, the objection based on their presence is without merit. The interest income earned from cooperative banks was also held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. For additions made in the intimation under Section 143(1), the Tribunal directed the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the ex gratia received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under Section 10(10B) of the Act, making it exempt from tax. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from statutory reserves and members' funds, arising from the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Provisions for interest and NPAs made according to prudential norms were also allowed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from statutory reserves and members' funds, arising from the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Provisions for interest and NPAs made according to prudential norms were also allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) to cover its investments in the subsidiary. Therefore, it was presumed that the investments were made from these own funds, not borrowed ones.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) to cover its investments in the subsidiary. Therefore, it was presumed that the investments were made from these own funds, not borrowed ones.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were then remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 181-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal then remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, taking into account a similar assessment order for AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery belonged to various family members and was acquired through gifts, inheritance, and drawings from a partnership firm. The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions were not refuted by adverse material and directed the deletion of the entire addition.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's daily sales, which were reflected in the books of account. The Tribunal also found that the ad-hoc disallowances were made without sufficient evidence and were based on mere surmises.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to remit the entire issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. A token cost was imposed on the assessee for their negligence in responding to notices.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to remit the entire issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. A token cost was imposed on the assessee for their negligence in responding to notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were then remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on surplus funds, which are not required for business operations or statutorily mandated deposits, is not attributable to the business of the co-operative society. Therefore, such income is taxable under 'Income from Other Sources' and not eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the service of a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment. In the absence of proof of service of the notice dated 23/02/2017, the entire reassessment proceeding was considered fatal and void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in estimating agricultural income without rejecting the books of account, citing a jurisdictional High Court precedent. The estimation was also found to be based on unsound grounds and contradictory reasoning.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. It found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the reasons for the trust's inactivity and had not granted an adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the first rejection order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. It found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the reasons for the trust's inactivity and had not granted an adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the first rejection order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal held that the TDS credit, which was reflected in Form 26AS and on which tax was deducted from income offered by the assessee, could not be denied. The omission in the original return should not be fatal, and the assessee should not be unjustly enriched.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in estimating agricultural income without rejecting the books of account, citing a jurisdictional High Court precedent. The estimation was also found to be based on unsound grounds and contradictory reasoning.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of disallowance of interest expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) to the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining necessary details. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Section 80P deduction was complex and required further examination.
The Tribunal held that the bank statements themselves clearly established the source of funds for the deposits, indicating that the additions were not warranted. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and the return of income.
The Tribunal held that as per the amended Section 80AC, filing the return of income by the due date under Section 139(1) is a statutory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P. Since the assessee failed to meet this condition, the deduction was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO without giving effect to the directions of the DRP is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to incorporate the relief granted by the DRP, retaining the original transfer pricing adjustment. This action was considered a violation of the statutory mandate and demonstrated a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal, following the precedents of Tavant Technologies India Private Limited and the Karnataka High Court in Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that such an order is unsustainable in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that the defect was a rectifiable mistake under Section 154, stating that a violation of a mandatory provision like Section 144C(13) constitutes a jurisdictional defect, not a clerical or arithmetical error. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the assessment itself was quashed.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, stating that the assessee was unaware of the newly inserted provision and had disclosed all material facts. The AO's determination of income was based on estimates from real estate websites.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in turnover and interest income, and the assessee's request for 8% net profit margin. To ensure justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining reconciliations and evidence.