ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to record specific findings on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that turnover discounts, service tax, VAT, and power cess refunds are eligible for deduction under section 80IC as they have a direct nexus with the assessee's business. Similarly, foreign exchange gains, interest from customers/suppliers, and commission on ocean freight were also held eligible for deduction. Sales tax subsidy was confirmed as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that turnover discounts, service tax, VAT, and power cess refunds are eligible for deduction under section 80IC as they have a direct nexus with the assessee's business. Similarly, foreign exchange gains, interest from customers/suppliers, and commission on ocean freight were also held eligible for deduction. Sales tax subsidy was confirmed as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide cogent material to treat corpus donations as voluntary donations. Similarly, the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of unsecured loans without proper inquiry or material was also found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the application for final registration was filed within the prescribed time after obtaining provisional registration. The rejection by the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the audit report was subsequently condoned by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b), the denial of exemption was incorrect. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.

The Tribunal held that turnover discounts, service tax, VAT, and power cess refunds are eligible for deduction under section 80IC as they have a direct nexus with the assessee's business. Similarly, foreign exchange gains, interest from customers/suppliers, and commission on ocean freight were also held eligible for deduction. Sales tax subsidy was confirmed as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that turnover discounts, service tax, VAT, and power cess refunds are eligible for deduction under section 80IC as they have a direct nexus with the assessee's business. Similarly, foreign exchange gains, interest from customers/suppliers, and commission on ocean freight were also held eligible for deduction. Sales tax subsidy was confirmed as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that turnover discounts, service tax, VAT, and power cess refunds are eligible for deduction under section 80IC as they have a direct nexus with the assessee's business. Similarly, foreign exchange gains, interest from customers/suppliers, and commission on ocean freight were also held eligible for deduction. Sales tax subsidy was confirmed as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading information on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The assessee deserves an opportunity to present their case, rendering the Assessing Officer's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal held that amounts credited to the assessee's personal account and used for personal purposes are to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). However, it was held that fresh claims for deductions under section 80C can be made in returns filed in response to notices under section 153A/B/C.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that amounts credited to the assessee's personal account and used for personal purposes are to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). However, it was held that fresh claims for deductions under section 80C can be made in returns filed in response to notices under section 153A/B/C.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's error in filing the wrong ITR (ITR 1) should not erase the undisputed facts. Procedure is a handmaid of justice, and the assessee did not intentionally gain by filing a wrong ITR.

The Tribunal held that amounts credited to the assessee's personal account and used for personal purposes are to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). However, it was held that fresh claims for deductions under section 80C can be made in returns filed in response to notices under section 153A/B/C.

The Tribunal held that cash payments exceeding the limits under Section 40A(3) were allowable if business expediency was established and the genuineness of transactions was not doubted. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed if the income against which TDS was deducted was accounted for.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allegations of sham transactions were not substantiated with sufficient evidence linking the alleged entry providers to the assessee's specific transactions. The Tribunal also found that the AO's assessment of the investee company's financial health and share price movement was flawed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be provided a reasonable opportunity to present its case and submit necessary documentation.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allegations of sham transactions were not substantiated with sufficient evidence linking the alleged entry providers to the assessee's specific transactions. The Tribunal also found that the AO's assessment of the investee company's financial health and share price movement was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs specified by the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the application should be examined on merits and not dismissed solely on limitation grounds.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the application should be examined on merits and not dismissed solely on limitation grounds.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the application should be examined on merits, not dismissed solely on limitation.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the application should be examined on its merits and not dismissed solely on limitation grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering that proceedings before the AO were also ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the late filing. It noted that the proceedings before the lower authorities were ex-parte and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that while Section 80AC mandated filing the return by the due date for claiming deductions, the Assessing Officer CPC lacked the specific enabling provision under Section 143(1)(a)(v) to make such a disallowance for the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the deductor to deposit TDS cannot be attributed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the credit of TDS to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) violated Section 250(6) of the Act. It also observed that the order from the Assessing Officer was also ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that share application money received in cash is not covered by the provisions of Section 269SS, as it is neither a loan nor a deposit. The Companies Act does not prohibit receiving share application money in excess of authorized capital.