Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 10 of 13
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold was outside municipal limits at the time of transaction, thus no capital gains tax was applicable. It also held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's submissions regarding sale of agricultural produce, savings, and refunds from a cancelled sale agreement.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was obliterated.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The dispute was considered settled due to the declaration made under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for club expenses, following its consistent past decisions. For prior period expenses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, agreeing with the assessee's submission based on previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and examined the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the ceding commission paid by the assessee did not fall under the ambit of Section 194D of the Income Tax Act, as it was not a reward for soliciting or procuring insurance business. Therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Based on the assessee's instructions, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal in a hurried manner without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The notices were issued in close proximity with short hearing periods.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed as expenditure. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that support this view.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Department was given liberty to approach the Tribunal to recall the order if the tax effect was found to be higher or protected by exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should examine the assessee's claim of filing the appeal in time and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. If there is a delay, the assessee must be given a chance to explain it before deciding the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee under Section 80G(5). This was based on a previous ITAT order which had specifically directed the grant of registration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments which held that if such contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, they cannot be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating that if PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return, they cannot be disallowed.
The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in e-filing and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for disposal on merits, taking a benign view of the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in denying the additional evidence without proper inquiry, especially since the assessment was ex-parte. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the interest of natural justice and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found no justification for the ad hoc disallowance of 20% of exempt income. Since the assessee agreed to disallowance as per Rule 8D, the AO was directed to compute the disallowance accordingly.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration under sections 12AA and 80G.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order against a non-existent entity is illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO should verify the assessee's claim of a distress sale. The matter was restored to the AO to re-assess the issue in light of the Tribunal's decision in Krithika Lingappan vs ITO, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove the distress sale.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the penalty was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the cash deposit was from the sale of agricultural land. The lack of corroborating evidence, such as the appearance of the mediator or a verified agreement, led to the rejection of the assessee's plea.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee can seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV scheme for bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification.
The Tribunal held that the handwriting expert's report and the FIR strongly supported the assessee's claim that the bank account was not opened by her. Therefore, no addition could be made based on this account.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when the assessee has not received any dividend income, which is exempt from tax. The CIT(A)'s finding that no exempt income was received was upheld.
The Tribunal held that license fees paid under the new revenue sharing regime are revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions. Regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal directed proportionate credit to be allowed for income declared in the relevant year, referencing Rule 37BA(3)(ii).
The Tribunal held that since the assessment and reassessment proceedings, on which the penalty was levied, were quashed, the penalty could not survive independently. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be cancelled.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration under sections 12AA and 80G.
The designated authority accepted the assessee's declaration and issued Form-5, settling the dispute. The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that license fees paid under the new revenue sharing regime are revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions. Regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal directed proportionate credit to be allowed for income declared in the relevant year, referencing Rule 37BA(3)(ii).
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed no bank account in Sarvodaya Co-operative Bank, the addition for margin money was purely on estimation, and a loss was incurred in the disputed share transactions. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the gross contractual receipts of Rs. 3.41 crores. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit at 8% on total receipts and give credit for tax already paid on income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issuing Form No. 5.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017, no further verification is required for cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000 in the case of an individual not having business income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 20,000 as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenses with proper bills and vouchers. Similarly, the penalty charges were confirmed as disallowed due to lack of evidence to prove their compensatory nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had given concurrent findings for the current and previous assessment years in favor of the assessee. The Revenue failed to point out any mistakes in the CIT(A)'s order or controvert the assessee's submissions, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement of disputes under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. As per the scheme, pending appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, thus failing to discharge the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the issue of interest on outstanding receivables is governed by the binding precedent of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision in Kusum Healthcare held that receivables do not automatically become an international transaction and that if the impact on working capital is already factored in, further adjustment would distort the picture.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the issue of interest on outstanding receivables is governed by the binding precedent of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision in Kusum Healthcare held that receivables do not automatically become an international transaction and that if the impact on working capital is already factored in, further adjustment would distort the picture.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue can approach for recall if the tax effect is higher or protected by exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue has a duty to tax only the correct income and grant refunds for taxes erroneously paid. The Assessing Officer cannot refuse relief on a technicality like the absence of a revised return if it's apparent that income was wrongly included.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was cryptic and lacked proper discussion of the facts and the Assessing Officer's findings. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance. They also agreed with the deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and the estimated gross profit, finding the AO's basis for these additions to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenses or depreciation does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the genuineness of the expenditure or beneficial ownership is debatable. The penalty was deemed inappropriate in these circumstances.
The Tribunal found that mitigating circumstances existed, such as the assessee nursing significant losses and lack of knowledge regarding the notices. Therefore, the assessee should be exonerated from the penalty.