Loading ITAT cases…
92 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that provisions for standard assets are allowable for cooperative banks as per RBI guidelines and previous tribunal rulings. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance using half percent of the average investment value.
The Tribunal held that the main disputed issues concerning Sections 194H and 194J were remitted back to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The issue of limitation for passing the order was also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the application. The amendment clause did not require prior CIT approval, and the dissolution clause adequately provided for assets to be transferred to a similar registered society or the government.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposit. The lower authorities' decision to add the amount to the assessee's income was confirmed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,56,775/-, finding that while some deposits were explained, a significant portion remained unexplained. The CIT(A) had partially deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the main disputed issues concerning Sections 194H and 194J were remitted back to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The issue of limitation for passing the order was also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the main disputed issues concerning Sections 194H and 194J were remitted back to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The issue of limitation for passing the order was also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the main disputed issues concerning Sections 194H and 194J were remitted back to the AO for verification of evidence and to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The issue of limitation for passing the order was also remitted to the AO.
The tribunal held that the provision for standard assets is allowable for co-operative banks, following its own prior decision. It also confirmed additions for certain provisions but allowed the claim for commission payment to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to additional evidence filed. The addition of Rs. 3,30,600/- from four persons who appeared before the AO was deleted, while the addition of Rs. 8,90,400/- from the remaining 10 persons was confirmed.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to the unserved notice. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT Delhi Bench decision for this presumption.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition as the reason was not considered plausible. Due to the non-removal of defects pointed out by the registry, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 4,50,000/- capital introduction was satisfactorily explained by the assessee's audited accounts. For the interest payment, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipient had offered the income to tax. Several ad-hoc disallowances of expenses were deleted due to lack of specific evidence from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction as TDS was deducted and deposited within the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, was considered to have retrospective effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition on one issue, finding it to be a reasonable view. However, regarding a new ground raised by the assessee, the Tribunal admitted it and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, following the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowances without pointing out specific defects in the bills or vouchers. Therefore, the disallowances were not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting and the liability was crystallized in the financial year, the remaining Rs. 9 crores should also be allowed as a deduction. However, donations to non-recognized persons were disallowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without assigning reasons. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty for non-maintenance of books of account. However, it set aside the penalty for failure to get accounts audited, reasoning that if books were not maintained, audit was not possible. The penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was confirmed due to suppressed turnover.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition on one issue, finding it to be a reasonable view. However, regarding a new ground raised by the assessee, the Tribunal admitted it and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, following the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the purchaser's denial was not convincing, especially considering a subsequent valuation report that supported a higher market value. The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration was indeed Rs. 54,00,000/- as per the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was not justified for all the share applicants. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case for the share applicants who were not directors.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire difference cannot be treated as income. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% of the differential amount.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the impounded documents did not relate to the relevant assessment year and no evidence of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a single day for the relevant period was found. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the AO failed to find any evidence of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- to any person on a single day for the relevant assessment year. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court decision in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd v CIT, held that TDS under Section 195 is not applicable on payments for import purchases that are not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F(1) as he owned only one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. The proviso to Section 54F(1) only debars deduction if the assessee owns *more than one* residential house.
The Tribunal found that the closing stock issue required further verification and remitted it to the AO. Regarding the TDS issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no TDS was deductible as the payments were for raw materials purchased on a principal-to-principal basis from outside India, and no income accrued to the non-resident in India.
The Tribunal found that the closing stock issue required further verification and remitted it to the AO. Regarding the TDS issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no TDS was deductible as the payments were for raw materials purchased on a principal-to-principal basis from outside India, and no income accrued to the non-resident in India.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contributions to EPF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of partner remuneration disallowance, finding the partnership deed authorized it. The issue of suppressed sale was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee's appeal regarding depreciation was dismissed for lack of evidence of use.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had capitalized interest on term loans for setting up its captive power plant and ore beneficiation plant as per Accounting Standard 16. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance made by the AO, as the interest was capitalized and not charged to the P&L account.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after the assessee provided explanations and submissions, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not sustainable. The subsequent compliance was considered sufficient by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication, the penalty appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) in both cases. For the Section 271D penalty, it was held that transferring funds from a partner's capital account to an unsecured loan account does not violate Section 269SS. For the Section 271(1)(c) penalty, it was held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis without specific evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that merely agreeing to additions and paying tax and interest does not automatically imply concealment of income, especially when bonafide explanations are offered. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) in both cases. For the Section 271D penalty, it was held that transferring funds from a partner's capital account to an unsecured loan account does not violate Section 269SS. For the Section 271(1)(c) penalty, it was held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis without specific evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that Form No. 10 can be filed before the completion of assessment proceedings, even if there is a delay. The assessee should not be penalized for the delay, as it affects the trust's objectives.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.