Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the arguments presented.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was sufficiently explained as it was routed through banking channels and confirmed by the creditor, despite the creditor not responding to summons. It also held that the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered, not the date of registration, for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(Exemption) was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without deciding the issues on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is discretionary and not mandatory. The AO has the discretion to impose penalty based on a judicious decision after considering all relevant aspects of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It further held that reopening the assessment beyond four years without any fresh tangible material, based on the same documents used in the original assessment, amounts to a change of opinion and is therefore bad in law.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) can be made only if the assessee does not have sufficient interest-free funds to make investments yielding exempt income. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the deduction would still be available. The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought in by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Since the contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. If the contributions were remitted before the due date for filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and not applicable for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the disallowance of late payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable. Following favorable judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned fees and re-computation of the demand.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the deduction is allowable if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, as the basis for the penalty (quantum additions) had been entirely removed. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's order.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective. The contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable as deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contribution to PF & ESI is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, as per the prevailing legal interpretation. The deduction for interest on belated payment was also held to be allowable if compensatory in nature.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. If the contributions were paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to provide the necessary details and substantiate their application.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), operates prospectively and is not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in proper deliberation. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay, and that too without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases, the AO also failed to carry out necessary inquiries. Therefore, the 100% addition was considered excessive.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional powers under Section 263 solely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings. The AO's decision not to initiate penalty proceedings, in the absence of clear findings of underreporting or misreporting, was considered valid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, attributing it to ignorance of law and wrong professional advice, were not convincing. The Tribunal found that the assessee was aware of tax proceedings and had engaged professionals, indicating a lack of genuine ignorance.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding bank guarantee charges, finding they were reimbursed on a cost-to-cost basis without any markup. For outstanding receivables, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply the LIBOR + 300 BPS rate for imputing interest, modifying the earlier decision.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a shortfall in payments received against invoices from its customers. It was sufficient to show this shortfall, and the amounts were allowable as business loss.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on the Anna Nagar property, which generated rental income, are not allowable as business expenses beyond the statutory deduction for house property income. Other expenditures for genuine business purposes would be admissible.
The Tribunal held that the onus to prove the source of cash deposits was on the assessee, which was not fully discharged. While confirming additions related to gifts and business advances, the Tribunal deleted the addition pertaining to rental advances from one creditor, finding their explanation acceptable.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of software development expenses for non-deduction of TDS, as the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to prove the nature of payments. However, the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income was deleted, and depreciation on digital content was restricted to 25%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 50% of the total amount claimed as depreciation, as the assets were put to use only from March 25, 2014. The disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund under Section 244A of the Act up to the date of actual grant of refund, which is November 11, 2014.
The Tribunal held that the extinguishment of rights in a property falls under the definition of 'transfer' as per Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the compensation received is taxable as capital gains, and the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that LTA needs reconsideration by the AO. However, it confirmed the disallowance of food, telephone, conveyance, and other exemptions as they were not related to earning salary. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal regarding the house property loss, finding no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the remission of unsecured loans taken for acquiring capital assets, amounting to Rs. 2,55,53,342/-, is a capital receipt and not taxable under Section 41(1). The issue regarding advances from customers and loans from others to the extent of Rs. 84,23,901/- was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the second re-opening of assessment was based on the same material available during the first re-assessment, constituting a 'change of opinion'. Therefore, the re-assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, finding them to be ex-parte and in violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous as the issue of 'Flat-Warranty Deposit' was not properly examined during the limited scrutiny assessment. The deduction was considered a loss of revenue, making the order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reconciliation statement for the stock. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for re-deciding after considering the reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted the LTCG after examining the relevant facts. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on the merits of the disallowances. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.