Loading ITAT cases…
418 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the revenue expenditure and in denying the deduction under Section 80IB(8A). It found that the provisions of Section 80IA(10) were not triggered as the income earned from connected companies was not less than ordinary profits. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the diary belonged to the assessee. The assessee had rebutted the presumption under Section 132(4A) by providing evidence that the diary belonged to his daughter.
The Tribunal held that since the search and seizure operation occurred between June 1, 2007, and July 1, 2012, the AO should have initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue in dispute has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by various judgments and orders. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' view was based on suspicion and probabilities, without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the transactions were carried out through recognized stock exchanges and routed through banks, supported by contract notes and bills. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws relied upon by the Revenue, finding them not useful to support the impugned order. Respectfully following the judgments cited by the assessee, including those from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and Delhi High Court (e.g., Pr. CIT vs. Prempal Gandhi, CIT vs. Vishal Holding and Capital Pvt. Ltd., Pr. CIT vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd.), the Tribunal deleted the addition in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The operative direction is the deletion of the addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applies to the interest income earned by the association from its members' contributions, as the funds were utilized exclusively for the members' benefit. Consequently, the interest income is not taxable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that punitive charges were business expenses, water supply expenses were necessary, and hiring charges paid to related parties were at competitive rates.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applies to the interest income earned by the association from its members' contributions, as the funds were utilized exclusively for the members' benefit. Consequently, the interest income is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the waivers of loan, interest, and guarantee fees were not in the nature of income or cessation of liability under Section 41(1) as the assessee had not claimed them as expenditure. The waivers were considered a government policy for revival and akin to a grant-in-aid.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applies to the interest income earned by the association from its members' contributions, as the funds were utilized exclusively for the members' benefit. Consequently, the interest income is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the instant appeal given the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular's instructions are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was involved in running and managing educational institutions by upgrading government ITIs and providing job training. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal allowed the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 58,00,000/- was paid by the assessee to his wife out of explained sources and was not a credit received by the assessee, thus Section 68 was not applicable. The penalty under Section 271D was also deleted, following precedents that transactions between husband and wife for family benefit do not attract Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details regarding the deposits and their sources. Merely because parties were not produced before the AO to establish genuineness did not automatically constitute concealment, especially when the additions formed part of the record. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B cannot be charged from a non-resident assessee if the entire tax was deducted at source by the payer, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. For Section 234A interest, it was held to be consequential and dependent on the outcome of pending ITAT proceedings, thus remanding it for recalculation.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained regular books of accounts and the disputed amount closely matched the opening cash in hand as per the balance sheet, the addition was unjustified. The CIT(A)'s findings were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits and PPF deposit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The denial of HRA exemption was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to deduct TDS under Section 194-I on lease rent and under Section 194-A on interest payments. However, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the benefit of the proviso to Section 201(1) if the recipient had disclosed and paid tax on the income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the AO and CIT(A). This violation of natural justice renders the assessment order a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of the residential house is considered to have taken place on the date of registration of the sale deed, which was within one year prior to the sale of the original asset. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only when sums are found credited in the 'books of account' maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee did not maintain books of account and the deposits were in a bank account, Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal noted that Section 69 might have been more appropriate but they were not competent to make additions under that section.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and evidence for the cash credits and differences in receipts, including the treatment of rental income as part of business receipts.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of documents. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case and consider the submitted documents.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had ignored the assessee's reply filed on 02.05.2016. To ensure justice and fair play, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details regarding the deposits and their sources. Merely because parties were not produced before the AO to establish genuineness did not automatically constitute concealment, especially when the additions formed part of the record. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The ITAT held that the deletion of disallowance for salary and rent paid in the UK was justified as the employee did not render services in India. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance for export commission, stating the assessee cannot be faulted for not deducting TDS based on subsequent retrospective amendments. The proportionate disallowance of foreign travel expenses was also deleted as the assessee maintained separate books and paid MAT.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding no infirmity in the AO's satisfaction or the approval from higher authorities. However, due to the assessee's lack of access to records and the AO's failure to provide deductions for expenses, the additions were set aside for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question was previously decided as non-taxable. Therefore, reopening the assessment to substitute book value with market value based on a valuation report was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details regarding the deposits and their sources. Merely because parties were not produced before the AO to establish genuineness did not automatically constitute concealment, especially when the additions formed part of the record. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that relying on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the discount transactions for Rs. 12,06,800, confirming the disallowance. However, for the balance amount of Rs. 59,61,505, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 41(1) were not met as there was no evidence of cessation of liability.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, respectfully following the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording any dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts or suo-moto disallowance. The suo-moto disallowance was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal found that the peak cash credit calculation by the AO was erroneous and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides correct calculation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to accept the source of cash deposit from the sale of livestock to the extent of Rs. 7.60 lacs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C should be deleted. This was based on a previous decision where the Tribunal found the assessee's belief to be bonafide and the failure to deduct tax to be for a reasonable cause, lacking contumacious conduct.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 58,00,000/- was paid by the assessee to his wife out of explained sources and was not a credit received by the assessee, thus Section 68 was not applicable. The penalty under Section 271D was also deleted, following precedents that transactions between husband and wife for family benefit do not attract Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if there is a shortfall in tax deduction, and the provision only applies when no tax is deducted at all. The assessee can be declared in default under Section 201 for short deduction, but not subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C should be deleted. This was based on a previous decision where the Tribunal found the assessee's belief to be bonafide and the failure to deduct tax to be for a reasonable cause, lacking contumacious conduct.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that TDS was correctly deducted on the markup component of project management expenses, interest on CWIP was revenue in nature, and software expenses (AMC, consumables, license fees) were revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording any dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts. The suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 1,58,800/- was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, including contract notes, STT payment, electronic consideration, and Demat account transfers. The AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut this evidence with any specific material or inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, including contract notes, STT payment, electronic consideration, and Demat account transfers. The AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut this evidence with any specific material or inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. However, the Revenue requested permission to withdraw the appeal, citing departmental instructions and a modified circular allowing for contestation in specific circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act due to the proviso to Section 12A(2). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not leviable as the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the source and manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the CBDT circular. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs, and it applies retrospectively to pending appeals.