Loading ITAT cases…
34 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no authority to levy fee under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A empowering this levy was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee for the periods in question was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should not examine the trust's activities at the stage of granting registration, but only the genuineness of the objects. Since no material was presented to show the objects were not charitable, the refusal was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the grounds that the amendment clause did not require prior approval from the CIT(E) and that the winding-up clause did not explicitly state transfer of assets to a 12AA registered institution. The Tribunal followed a previous decision on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, as the AO relied on the same material available during the original assessment. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. to emphasize that reassessment requires tangible material and not just a different view.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, as the AO relied on the same material available during the original assessment. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. to emphasize that reassessment requires tangible material and not just a different view.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account and the estimated profit rates for the works contract and travel businesses. However, it remanded the issue of interest on fixed deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering new evidence. The addition of the insurance claim was deleted as it amounted to double addition.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E could only be levied after June 1, 2015, as per the amendment to Section 200A. Therefore, the levy of late fee for the period prior to this date was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order had set aside the assessments for denovo consideration after the CIT passed an order on the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA. Since the CIT's order was still awaited, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the matter needed verification. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if higher depreciation was allowed in earlier years and to pass an order on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for prior period expenses, provision for pension fund, and interest on capital asset investment, following its own precedents. For accrued expenses, the case was remanded to the AO for further verification. For capital expenditure claimed as revenue, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessees acted as developers of infrastructure projects, not merely contractors, and thus were eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The previous Tribunal decision was followed.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of TDS on GRIDCO payments to the AO for verification, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. For interest on fixed deposits, the Tribunal allowed deduction of interest paid on security deposits from such income.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in refusing registration under Section 12A based on the non-commencement of educational activities. The decision should have been based on the charitable objectives and activities of the trust.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of sundry creditors, holding that once books of account are rejected and net profit is estimated, further disallowances from the same account are not permissible. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest-free loans were provided from the assessee's own funds and not from borrowed funds. The Tribunal also found that the transportation expenses were not paid in cash and that the donations had an indirect nexus with the business.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no reason to interfere with the best judgment assessment. The assessee's inability to produce books of accounts raised doubts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately substantiated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gifts. Regarding the deemed dividend, the Tribunal also found the issue required further examination.
The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the transactions and payments was not doubted by the Assessing Officer and the sale deeds were registered, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted. The Tribunal followed its own precedent and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that filing an appeal requires effective prosecution. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it is liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately substantiated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gifts. Regarding the deemed dividend, the Tribunal also found the issue required further examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal agreed that the salary payment to partners lacked proper quantification as per the partnership deed and relevant CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the accrued expenses were ascertained liabilities and the pension fund income was not taxable as revenue. It also confirmed the higher depreciation rate on railways and rolling stock as plant and machinery.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to tax the deemed dividend in the hands of the partner without proper verification. The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the dividend was indeed taxed in the partner's hands and that the CIT(A) might have mistaken the facts.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the transactions and payments was not doubted. Following judicial precedents, it was found that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not warranted if there are compelling grounds and exceptional circumstances, and the transactions are genuine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion and not on any new tangible material. The AO's actions were considered a review of his own prior assessment.
The Tribunal held that the interest on mobilization advance is intrinsically connected with the capital expenditure of the assessee prior to the commencement of its business. Therefore, it is a capital receipt and should be adjusted against the cost of work-in-progress.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the AO's action was a mere change of opinion without new facts emerging. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a Central Co-operative Bank and not a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4). The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds related to the provision for NPA, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal remanded the rent payment issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's evidence that the payee had declared the income and paid tax. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on travel and conveyance expenses, holding that an ad-hoc disallowance without verifying genuineness is not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee should be estimated at 6.5% of the gross receipts, modifying the CIT(A)'s estimation of 8%. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation, interest, and remuneration to partners from the estimated income, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a government agency with objectives for public welfare and not profit, should not be taxed on its surplus. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation after verification.
The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee should be estimated at 6.5% of the gross receipts, modifying the CIT(A)'s estimation of 8%. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation, interest, and remuneration to partners from the estimated income, following a coordinate bench decision.