Loading ITAT cases…
143 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that technicalities should not impede substantive justice. The Tribunal found that the dismissal by the CIT(A) without considering the merits was not justified and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that technicalities should not impede substantive justice. The Tribunal found that the dismissal by the CIT(A) without considering the merits was not justified and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal found contradictions in its previous order regarding limestone sale prices and directed recalculation based on specific rates for certain assessment years. It also noted that the assessee's plea regarding cross-examination for commission income had been overlooked.
The tribunal upheld the disallowance for AY 2016-17 under Section 43B as the payment was made after the due date. However, it directed the AO to consider the deduction for AY 2017-18 as it was the year of actual payment. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also upheld due to lack of evidence regarding the nature of payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that technicalities should not impede substantive justice. The Tribunal found that the dismissal by the CIT(A) without considering the merits was not justified and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal found contradictions in its previous order regarding limestone sale prices and directed recalculation based on specific rates for certain assessment years. It also noted that the assessee's plea regarding cross-examination for commission income had been overlooked.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide 'sufficient cause' related to personal exigencies and not a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Substantial justice should not be defeated by technical considerations.
The Tribunal noted that a first appeal against the quantum addition was already pending. Considering this and that the impugned order was ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of commission paid to directors, holding it was an ascertained liability. It deleted the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) and u/s 14A, and partly allowed the transfer pricing adjustments on reimbursement of expenses and corporate guarantee charges.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition could be made in respect of completed and unabated assessments. The reliance was placed on decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition could be made in respect of completed and unabated assessments. The reliance was placed on decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of commission paid to directors, holding it was an ascertained liability. It deleted the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) and u/s 14A, and partly allowed the transfer pricing adjustments on reimbursement of expenses and corporate guarantee charges.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3.91 Lacs earnest money was fully explained as coming from the assessee's father. The Tribunal also noted a discrepancy in the Assessing Officer's computation of total income and directed a re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, which generated income from training services provided at commercial rates, were not charitable in nature. Therefore, the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G by the CIT (Exemptions) was upheld.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been given an effective opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to inadvertent reasons. Considering the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional or wilful and was of a short duration (under four months). It further held that the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely on account of delay in filing Form 67 is unjustified, as Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, and DTAA provisions override the Act.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's adverse medical conditions, the appeal should have been admitted. Upon perusal of financials, the Tribunal found that the deposits could not be entirely treated as unexplained money.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for proper factual verification of cash deposits. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including cash books and audited financial statements, to explain the cash deposits as business receipts. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition under Section 69A or the application of the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balances as per its cash book, and the sales turnover was accepted. The estimation of average sales was found to be arbitrary, and since the overall sales turnover was not disturbed, the additions made by the AO lacked basis.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal by filing a Miscellaneous Application if they failed to avail the scheme's benefit due to technicalities.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to furnish complete verifiable evidence for the cash deposits. Considering the facts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1 Lac would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D without recording satisfaction based on cogent reasons. The assessee had made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 556/- based on a proportionate method, which was supported by judicial pronouncements, including the assessee's own case. The AO's reliance solely on Rule 8D without examining the assessee's methodology was incorrect. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. Regarding the interest expenditure disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal noted that the AO had not clearly established whether borrowed funds were used for investments not related to business. The assessee argued that the expenditure should be allowed under Section 57. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and directed that the issue of allowing interest expenditure under Section 57 be examined. The issue of importing Section 14A disallowance into Section 115JB was not explicitly decided as the primary disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds in the escrow account is revenue in nature and taxable as 'income from other sources'. The assessee's business operations had already commenced, so the income could not be considered pre-operative.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. Both impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Additionally, the assessee's appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Additionally, the assessee's appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds in the escrow account is revenue in nature and taxable as 'income from other sources'. The assessee's business operations had already commenced, so the income could not be considered pre-operative.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT, held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI, if not deposited within the statutory due dates, are not allowable as deductions. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Additionally, the assessee's appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' made the appeal infructuous. It was clarified that the appeal could be revived under specific conditions.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments for land purchases were not justified by business expediency, unlike cases involving daily transactions or perishable goods. The Tribunal found the AO's action and the CIT(A)'s confirmation to be justified.
The Tribunal noted that a quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A) and its outcome would impact this penalty appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of the quantum appeal's outcome.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of four days in filing the appeal. However, as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024' and sought to withdraw the appeal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that there was an inadvertent typographical error in reporting the agricultural income. They noted that the declared agricultural income in other years was consistently below Rs. 10.50 Lacs and evidence supported income in the Rs. 8.08 Lacs range.
The Tribunal noted that a subsequent rectification order under Section 154 allowed the ground in favor of the assessee, settling the grievance at the first appellate level.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A) and the matter was decided ex parte. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a senior citizen, was legally permitted to hold cash. The addition was confirmed on a wrong premise, and since the sources were accepted, the confirmed addition was deleted.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside and the appeal restored.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to disprove the assessee's claim and did not reject the books of accounts. The cash balance was sufficient, and sales proceeds were offered to tax, making the addition impermissible.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. Both impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's accumulated cash balance and past pattern of cash sales, supported by audited books. The addition for credit from the third party was deleted as the AO relied on a third-party statement without cross-examination and the sales were supported by documentation.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as 'withdrawn' because the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, making the appeal infructuous. It was clarified that if the assessee encounters technicalities preventing full benefit from the scheme, they could revive the appeal by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the due date.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was valid, as proper approval was obtained from the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits through various documents and confirmations.
The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution, which, if not deposited by the due date, is treated as income of the employer and not eligible for deduction. The circular regarding Covid-19 lockdown was found not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax expenditure of Rs.3.32 Lacs was related to the perquisite value of concessional accommodation provided to employees and was deposited by the assessee, thus not warranting penalty. The disallowance of maintenance expenditure was found to be due to technical breaches rather than lack of genuineness. Therefore, penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee was a non-filer and failed to provide justification for financial transactions. However, the CIT(A) should not have decided the case on merits without admitting the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution, and the requirement of timely deposit under Section 36(1)(va) for deductibility under Section 43B, were reiterated.