Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not mention any incriminating material belonging to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was not recorded in the capacity of the AO of the searched person and did not refer to any incriminating material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of hoarding charges disallowance to the AO for verification, allowing for potential relief if the assessee's claim is correct. The Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation on hoardings, considering them temporary structures.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of hoarding charges to the AO for verification, allowing for potential relief if the assessee's claim is correct. For depreciation on hoardings, the Tribunal held that they are temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation, following a previous ruling.
The Tribunal noted that the tax audit report for the relevant period was filed before the reassessment order was passed. The delay in filing was attributed to procedural approvals and statutory audit delays.
The Tribunal noted that the tax audit report for the relevant period was filed before the reassessment order was passed. The delay in filing was attributed to procedural approvals and statutory audit delays.
The Tribunal noted that the tax audit report for the relevant period was filed before the reassessment order was passed. The delay in filing was attributed to procedural approvals and statutory audit delays.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of hoarding charges to the AO for verification, allowing for potential relief if the assessee's claim is correct. For depreciation on hoardings, the Tribunal held that they are temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation, following a previous ruling.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of hoarding charges disallowance to the AO for verification, allowing for interest on late TDS payment. For depreciation on hoardings, the Tribunal held them to be temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation, following a previous ITAT decision.
The Tribunal found that while the reassessment proceedings were valid, the entire amount could not be treated as income without considering business expenditure. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lumpsum amount for the first assessment year and similarly for subsequent years.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for limited factual verification regarding the application of income for charitable objects. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order in principle for the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The DRP's directions were received by the AO on December 27, 2022, but the assessment order was passed on February 20, 2023, which is beyond the one-month period.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had invoked the penalty provisions in a consolidated manner without specifying individual transactions. It also clarified that the AO must prove each instance of cash acceptance or repayment of Rs. 20,000 or more.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a simple disallowance of a claim, even if not accepted by the AO, does not automatically constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Revenue failed to establish a case for penalty on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the Section 80P deduction for interest income earned from co-operative banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For the appeal involving Section 68 additions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the reassessment proceedings were valid, the entire amount could not be treated as income without considering business expenditure. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lumpsum amount for the first assessment year and similarly for subsequent years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 14A disallowance should only consider dividend-yielding investments. It also affirmed that CSR expenditure donations to the Chief Minister's relief fund are eligible for deduction under Section 80G, following various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the Section 80P deduction for interest income earned from co-operative banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For the appeal involving Section 68 additions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the Section 80P deduction for interest income earned from co-operative banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For the appeal involving Section 68 additions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the Section 80P deduction for interest income earned from co-operative banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For the appeal involving Section 68 additions, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for limited factual verification regarding the application of income for charitable objects. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order in principle for the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had invoked the penalty provisions in a consolidated manner without specifying individual transactions. It also clarified that the AO must prove each instance of cash acceptance or repayment of Rs. 20,000 or more.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to reasonable cause, as the society had no control over the audit process of the Co-operative Department. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous. The Assessing Officer's subsequent verification confirmed no transactions with non-members, granting full relief.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC), which reversed the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal noted that the relevant facts concerning the assessee's Section 80P deduction claim are identical to those in the Supreme Court case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s findings once again. The operative direction is that the Revenue's appeals are dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper determination points and detailed discussion, and there was a possibility of a communication gap. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A must be based on seized material, which was not the case here. Therefore, the revisionary order for AY 2012-13 was not sustainable. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case due to the pandemic and restored the matter to the Principal CIT for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A must be based on seized material, which was not the case here. Therefore, the revisionary order for AY 2012-13 was not sustainable. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case due to the pandemic and restored the matter to the Principal CIT for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee, a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2). This was based on a High Court ruling that classified such societies as primary agricultural credit societies whose principal object is agricultural credit activities.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also accepted the assessee's arguments regarding Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) and RBI penalties, restoring Section 115JB adjustments and ESOP claims for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also accepted the assessee's arguments regarding Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) and RBI penalties, restoring Section 115JB adjustments and ESOP claims for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also accepted the assessee's arguments regarding Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) and RBI penalties, restoring Section 115JB adjustments and ESOP claims for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also accepted the assessee's arguments regarding Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) and RBI penalties, restoring Section 115JB adjustments and ESOP claims for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's orders were not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication after providing the taxpayer with opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also accepted the assessee's arguments regarding Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) and RBI penalties, restoring Section 115JB adjustments and ESOP claims for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Following the Kerala High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd., such societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2).
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC), which reversed the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal noted that the relevant facts concerning the assessee's Section 80P deduction claim are identical to those in the Supreme Court case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s findings once again. The operative direction is that the Revenue's appeals are dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed detailed evidence before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal found the DRP's orders to be non-speaking and lacking proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication after providing the taxpayer with opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's orders were non-speaking and failed to adjudicate the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the DRP for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee had filed detailed evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous. The Assessing Officer's subsequent verification confirmed no transactions with non-members, granting full relief.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit as the assessee was a cooperative bank and the relevant section for TDS exemption on interest payments to members was applicable. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes to enable fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) due to communication gaps.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to reasonable cause, as the society's audit process was governed by state co-operative law and beyond its direct control. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous. The Assessing Officer's subsequent verification confirmed no transactions with non-members, granting full relief.