Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence submitted by the assessee and found it vital for deciding the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the documents and re-examination of the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Act, which were extended to 30.09.2023, should also be treated as extended for Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii).
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions acceptable after perusing bank statements. It concluded that the cash deposited was likely from the sale of agricultural land, which is exempt from tax, and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that while a revised return filed belatedly might not be considered by the AO, appellate authorities can consider such claims. The Tribunal admitted the claims made in the revised computation and directed the AO to recompute the income based on it, considering brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) applies to genuine transactions if payments exceed the limit. It restricted the disallowance to Rs. 9,97,395/-, considering payments made on Sundays.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have disposed of the appeal and rejected the deduction while the condonation petition was pending before the CBDT. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the income determination was based on estimation and there was no finding that the entire cash deposit constituted business turnover, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the lower authorities on the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to substantiate its case, granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal verified the materials on record and found the assessee's request to be correct. The name of the respondent in the cause title has been rectified as requested.
The Tribunal verified the materials on record and found the assessee's request to be correct. The name of the respondent in the cause title has been rectified as requested.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim on the fair market value, based on an approved valuer's report, cannot be termed as concealment of income. Differences in valuation opinions do not automatically warrant a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the new property as she did not pay the consideration or borrow the loan. Therefore, the conditions for section 54F deduction were not met.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 11.27 Lacs as unexplained cash credit. However, it directed the AO to grant credit for taxes already paid by the assessee under the PMGKY scheme.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were time-barred as the penalty order was not passed within the statutory time limit from the date of the AO's reference. It also followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, stating that penalty under Section 271D requires satisfaction recorded by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders passed by the AO for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 were barred by limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2017-18, the DRP's directions were received by the AO on 03.06.2022, meaning the final assessment order should have been passed by 31.07.2022. However, the AO passed the order on 02.01.2023. Similarly, for AY 2018-19, the DRP's directions were received on 30.06.2022, requiring the order by 31.07.2022, but it was passed on 30.12.2022. The Tribunal found the provisions of Section 144C(13) to be clear and unambiguous regarding the time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed both final assessment orders as being barred by limitation. As the appeals were allowed on the limitation issue, all other grounds challenging additions on merits (transfer pricing and corporate tax) were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F does not mandate that the specific amount deposited in the capital gains account must be used for the new investment. The assessee can use their own or borrowed funds, and the construction and possession were within the stipulated time frame from the sale of the original asset.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders passed by the AO for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 were barred by limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2017-18, the DRP's directions were received by the AO on 03.06.2022, meaning the final assessment order should have been passed by 31.07.2022. However, the AO passed the order on 02.01.2023. Similarly, for AY 2018-19, the DRP's directions were received on 30.06.2022, requiring the order by 31.07.2022, but it was passed on 30.12.2022. The Tribunal found the provisions of Section 144C(13) to be clear and unambiguous regarding the time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed both final assessment orders as being barred by limitation. As the appeals were allowed on the limitation issue, all other grounds challenging additions on merits (transfer pricing and corporate tax) were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 194J, which requires TDS on payments for acquiring movie rights, was amended effective July 13, 2006. Since the rights were acquired before this amendment, TDS was not applicable, and therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been able to present all documentary evidence during the assessment and appellate proceedings due to reasons beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity for the assessee to submit these documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It then followed a precedent that extended timelines for Form 10AB applications under Section 12A should also apply to Section 80G applications.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the original issue regarding Section 80IA deduction had attained finality. Furthermore, there was no new tangible material to indicate escapement of income, and the reopening was based on an audit objection without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the penalty order was not passed within the statutory time limit from the date of the AO's reference. It also noted that the penalty provisions under sections 271D and 271E are pari materia and that the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills applies.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalties. It followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, stating that penalty under Section 271D requires prior satisfaction recorded by the AO. Additionally, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be time-barred as it was not passed within the statutory period from the date of the AO's reference.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee fall under the definition of royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the income should be taxed at 10% as offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were time-barred as the penalty order was not passed within the statutory time limit from the date of the AO's reference. It also followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, stating that penalty under Section 271D requires satisfaction recorded by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material, making it impermissible. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit on advances for reimbursement of expenses would be available, but not on fees not offered to tax and shown as advances. The matter was restored to the AO for reconciliation of the difference between Form 26AS and the income credited.
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 requires actual cash credit in the books of accounts, which was absent in this case. The increase in capital was due to revaluation of assets and liabilities, not new cash introductions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It then followed a precedent that extended timelines for Form 10AB applications under Section 12A should also apply to Section 80G applications.
The Tribunal held that the WCT written off was a crystallized expenditure in the current year due to the transition to GST and directed its allowance. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding cessation of liability and Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the WCT written off was a crystallized expenditure in the current year due to the transition to GST and directed its allowance. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding cessation of liability and Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's cash flow working for the entire year, which showed no cash deficit. However, it restricted the addition based on the opening cash balance.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier order, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to reconsider the claim in light of specific directions and the Supreme Court's ruling in T.R.F. Limited.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to uphold the principle of natural justice, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication. The outcome of the assessee's application for condonation of delay before the CBDT under Section 119(2) will be crucial. If rejected, income will be computed as per general provisions for an AOP.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs.25,000/- and substantiating their case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,26,33,341/- were explained by the assessee's daily sales receipts, as the sales figures exceeded the deposit amounts. However, the remaining unexplained SBN deposits of Rs. 1,22,76,000/- required further verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was genuinely pursuing alternative remedies and attempting to comply. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the registration application on its merits after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that the contents of the seized documents were true. The explanations offered for the difference in sale consideration were considered an afterthought without supporting evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards interest on non-performing assets, following Supreme Court decisions. For bad debts and other expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance in line with prior directions.
The Tribunal accepted the submission that Dr. L. Natarajan's name was inadvertently omitted from the cause title. The cause title of the previous order has been amended to reflect this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report as it was filed before the assessment order was completed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed the requested corrections. These changes were inserted into the original order, modifying specific dates, replacing names, deleting a paragraph, and renumbering other paragraphs.