Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the unremitted stamp duty collected from clients, which was not paid to the government, constituted income in the hands of the assessee, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and that it misconstrued the assessee's plea. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and examination of all materials.
The Tribunal found that there was a good and sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the issue in dispute was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the admitted sale suppression and the rejection of books of account. However, it found the estimated profit of 20% by the Assessing Officer to be on the higher side, considering the nature of the business.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, held that a belatedly filed return can be considered for deduction claims under Section 80P, provided further proceedings are pending. The AO was directed to consider the claim in accordance with law.
The Tribunal noted that higher depreciation on trailers was allowed in subsequent years and referenced a CBDT circular allowing higher depreciation even for own business use. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee failed to justify the claimed expenses and that the agricultural income was not commensurate with the land holding. However, it found the 50% estimation by the AO to be excessive.
The ITAT held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A enabling this was prospective. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the parties from whom the cash was allegedly received. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to verify if any exempt income was earned. If no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted for the years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment. If exempt income was earned, the disallowance should be computed considering own funds and investments as per the Reliance Industries Ltd. judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to verify if any exempt income was earned. If no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted for the years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment. If exempt income was earned, the disallowance should be computed considering own funds and investments as per the Reliance Industries Ltd. judgment.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2010-11, the reassessment was also found invalid as it was based on material already available. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding corpus donations and the carry forward of excess application of funds.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2010-11, the reassessment was also found invalid as it was based on material already available. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding corpus donations and the carry forward of excess application of funds.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not issued a proper notice of hearing by the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2010-11, the reassessment was also found invalid as it was based on material already available. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding corpus donations and the carry forward of excess application of funds.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had adopted a possible view and that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the facts of the case as the income was declared as business income and not unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the taxability of MTM gains and the eligibility of Section 80G deductions. The assessee also conceded the issue regarding Section 80G. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside for fresh inquiry by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it lacked proper inquiry on substantial issues. Therefore, the order of the Principal CIT directing further inquiry was confirmed.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts. For AY 2010-11, the reassessment was also found invalid as it was based on material already available. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding corpus donations and the carry forward of excess application of funds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and is distinct from a 'cooperative bank' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had adopted a possible view and that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the facts of the case as the income was declared as business income and not unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to verify if any exempt income was earned. If no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted for the years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment. If exempt income was earned, the disallowance should be computed considering own funds and investments as per the Reliance Industries Ltd. judgment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it lacked proper inquiry on substantial issues. Therefore, the order of the Principal CIT directing further inquiry was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view in allowing the deduction under Section 80-IA, which was supported by the jurisdictional High Court's decision at the time of assessment. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of various High Court and Tribunal judgments favoring the assessee. Non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions by the CIT(A) constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed on merits, following various High Court and Tribunal pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not going into the merits of the case and that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the merits of the case and by rejecting the assessee's plea on the ground of no 'mistake apparent from record'. The Tribunal noted that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case and that non-consideration of jurisdictional High Court decisions constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the merits of the case, especially in light of jurisdictional High Court decisions. Non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.