Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO did not follow the mandatory procedure outlined in CBDT instructions, which require prior approval from the Pr. CIT/CIT for expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the initially flagged issues. The Tribunal noted that the examination of deduction under Chapter VIA in a limited scrutiny cannot be construed as granting jurisdiction for complete scrutiny. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 44,62,500/- under Section 69A was deleted as it was made without jurisdiction and was bad in law. Consequently, the ground of appeal related to the Section 69A addition was allowed. The judgment does not explicitly address the other grounds raised by the assessee, such as the disallowance of Section 80P deduction, the applicability of Section 115BBE, or the levy of interest, as the appeal was allowed based on the jurisdictional issue concerning the expansion of scrutiny. The operative direction is to delete the addition made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, interest income earned on investments in scheduled banks and co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and is taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not refer the matter to the DVO for valuation and also failed to examine the existence of the constructed building. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-examination of the construction and the estimate provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without proper verification and adherence to natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and that the assessee had raised objections regarding valuation and provided details for the 54F claim. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the return of income and Form No. 10DA were filed within the due date as per the intimation under Section 143(1). Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA could not have been disallowed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the relief granted by the CIT(A) had been given effect to by the Assessing Officer, rendering the appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay did not constitute sufficient cause as per the Limitation Act. The assessee was expected to follow up with their representative regarding the appeal status.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, even after being intimated about the amalgamation, is void ab initio and cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Participation by the assessee in such proceedings does not create an estoppel against law.
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 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that its fresh application for registration under Section 12A had been favorably considered and granted by the Department, rendering the present appeal infructuous. The Senior DR for the Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions made in the 'statement of facts'. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter, pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. The principle established is that orders rejecting registration applications must be speaking orders and passed after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the end of the month in which wages become due, not from the month of actual disbursement. Therefore, the disallowances made under section 143(1)(a) were upheld as the assessee had deposited contributions beyond the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Additionally, the approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in treating the slump sale as an amalgamation and that depreciation on goodwill is allowable in such cases. The Tribunal also found that the business acquisition expenses were allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the printer was eligible for 60% depreciation as a computer, following a previous decision. It also deleted the addition for ceased liability and restored the issue of unabsorbed depreciation set-off to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the cash system of accounting led to date mismatches in vouchers and ledger entries. It restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that tax was collected at source under Section 206C(1H) for the transactions in question, negating the need for TDS under Section 194Q. It also noted that declarations under Section 194C(6) were submitted for transport payments.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made by the Revenue which increase the profit of the assessee are eligible for enhanced deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO was directed to examine the claim and allow the enhanced deduction on the increased profit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues raised by the AO were already decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches or higher courts in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the AO's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer lacked specific information regarding bank deposits and transactions. The Tribunal also noted that notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, hindering the assessee's ability to respond.
The Tribunal held that disallowance is not warranted for amounts where TDS was deducted and remitted before the due date for filing the return. For amounts where TDS was deducted later, the expenditure is allowable in the year of actual payment. The issue regarding payments to offshore lawyers was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the PF contributions were actually deposited within the due dates, supported by electronic challans. The initial incorrect dates in Form 3CD led to the adjustment. The Tribunal directed the jurisdictional AO to verify the actual payment dates and delete the addition if found correct.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It also held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to incorrect email communication and insufficient time provided by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on conjectures and surmises as the lower authorities did not provide reasons for disbelieving the assessee's audited accounts, which were supported by bank statements. The Revenue failed to show the cash balance was fictitious or utilized elsewhere.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed before the introduction of the faceless assessment scheme was valid. However, since the lower authorities did not decide the merits of the additions, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither party had produced the relevant agreements, and the lower authorities had decided the issue without examining them. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as delayed, as the CBDT circular extended the filing deadline to 31.5.2021, making the appeal filed within time. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the cash system of accounting led to date mismatches in vouchers and ledger entries. It restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ₹ 6 crores received by the assessee is a capital receipt arising from the surrender of rights in 8 acres of land. It is taxable as capital gains, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that an ad hoc disallowance under Section 69C is not sustainable when expenditure is recorded in books and sourced from identifiable parties, even if PAN numbers are missing for some agriculturists. The lower authorities' orders were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed the impugned commission expenditure, the PCIT's finding that the AO allowed it without verification was devoid of merit. Consequently, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to rectify its application and present its case for renewal of 80G registration.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) and directed the AO to allow the exemption. It also held that the revised limit of Rs. 25 Lakh for exemption under section 10(10AA) is applicable retrospectively.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to file supporting documents. The Tribunal emphasized that no order should be passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the 375-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that SBNs were prohibited only after the appointed date of 31/12/2016. While the assessee may not need to prove creditworthiness for deposits from members, it must provide KYC details for those members from whom SBNs were received.
The Tribunal held that merely entering into a JDA does not amount to engaging in commercial activities, especially when it was mutually cancelled and deposits were returned. The CIT(A)'s decision to consider the ground infructuous after obtaining necessary details was also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing bank confirmations and an affidavit confirming the loan repayment. The lower authorities had not examined the evidence and made additions based on presumption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,11,000/- made by the AO under section 69A of the Act. The addition was made on account of cash deposited into the bank during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the commencement of the new regime and was barred by limitation as per the unamended provisions of Section 149(1)(b). Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal decided all three issues in favour of the assessee. Regarding the taxability of software sale as royalty, the Tribunal referred to its own orders for earlier assessment years, specifically IT(IT)A No. 2696/Bang/2017 dated 12/08/2021, and subsequent orders, which held that the sale of software is not royalty, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment reported in 432 ITR 471 (SC). For annual maintenance charges, the Tribunal reasoned that if the sale of software itself was not taxable, then miscellaneous incomes like annual maintenance charges would also not be taxable as fees for technical services. Concerning the reimbursement of expenses, the Tribunal relied on its order in IT(IT)A No. 401/Bang/2023 dated 03/01/2024 and other orders for similar assessment years, holding that reimbursement of costs incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not furnished any contra decisions from higher forums. Consequently, the additions made by the AO on these three counts were deleted. The interest levied under section 234D was held to be consequential and was also deleted as the additions were deleted. The ratio decidendi is that where the sale of software is held not to be royalty, subsequent charges related to it or reimbursements of related expenses are also not taxable as FTS, especially when supported by consistent ITAT and High Court precedents following Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the previous order for AY 2007-08 did not contain any finding or direction to invoke Section 150(1) for reopening AY 2008-09. Furthermore, the reopening was barred by limitation under Section 150(2) as the assessment year had already become time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to technical glitches and should have been condoned. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance made by the AO on account of ICDS provisions was not justified.
The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69A. It held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and confirmations, to demonstrate the source of funds through disclosed banking channels.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and the CIT(A). It found that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the cash sales or the opening cash balance, rendering the claim unsubstantiated.