Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, issued without the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this ground without examining the merits of the case.
The Tribunal, noting that similar issues for prior assessment years were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, agreed to restore the present appeal to the Assessing Officer. This was done to allow the assessee to properly present its case and substantiate its claims, considering potential non-cooperation from previous management.
The Tribunal held that penal interest, arising from delay in lease payments and not from any offense or legal prohibition, is not distinguishable from normal interest for capitalization purposes when all expenses are capitalized. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow capitalization was correct.
The Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. Since the notices were returned unserved due to an incomplete address, the reassessment proceedings and order were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF and ESI deposited before the return filing date is allowable. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to make investments earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from examination services are not taxable as royalty income. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Center of Excellence Pvt Ltd. which clarified the definition of royalty in DTAAs.
The Tribunal held that hostel and transport facilities provided by an educational institution to its students are ancillary to its main charitable object and not business income. Therefore, the surplus generated from these activities is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to dispose of objections filed by the assessee against reassessment proceedings by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. Failure to do so vitiates the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Delhi High Court's ruling that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. The amendment to Section 14A was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect could not be cured by mentioning it in the assessment or penalty order.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies due to Section 44 and the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, as confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court. Disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the consultancy charges were intricately connected with the assessee's ongoing business to enhance profitability and were not for creating a new business or asset. Therefore, the expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, which pertained to the transaction occurring before the relevant amendment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, the consequential assessment made by the AO would not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from examination services are not taxable as royalty income. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Center of Excellence Pvt Ltd. which clarified the definition of royalty in DTAAs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of all grounds raised by the assessee, even when proceeding ex-parte. The impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision followed established judicial precedents, including Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The reopening of assessment was also found to be valid. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding club membership expenses, royalty expenses, and bank charges were squarely covered by earlier decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, as evidenced by Form No. 5 issued by the Designated Authority. The assessee's prayer for withdrawal was accepted.
The Tribunal held that payments made to agents of foreign shipping companies are covered under Section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not Section 194C. Therefore, TDS was not applicable on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on suspicion rather than a well-reasoned belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO failed to apply his mind to the facts and relied on a fallacious assumption that bank deposits inherently constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the cash found in the locker should be assessed in the hands of the primary owner, the assessee's mother, or her legal heir, not the assessee. The assessee's statement offering the cash as her mother's income was not consented to by the mother.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Designated Authority had issued Form No. 5, confirming the settlement.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding club membership expenses, royalty expenses, and bank charges were squarely covered by earlier decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue conceded this point.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are effective from April 1, 2021, and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question. It also relied on various High Court judgments stating that belatedly deposited employee contributions, if paid before the due date of filing the return, are allowable as deductions.
The Tribunal held that the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) by the tax authorities was incorrect. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal solely based on the sequence of bank deposits without properly considering the assessee's submissions and affidavit regarding the source of funds and the cancellation of the land deal.
The Tribunal held that if defects in an original return are rectified within the time allowed under Section 139(9), the revised return relates back to the original filing date. Therefore, the brought forward losses are eligible for set off.
The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court decision clarified that substantial expansion within the 10-year period can be considered a new initial assessment year for claiming 100% deduction under Section 80-IC.
The Tribunal held that a subsequent Supreme Court decision clarified that substantial expansion within the 10-year period can be considered a new initial assessment year for claiming 100% deduction under Section 80-IC.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely on technical grounds without discussing the merits. The Tribunal found that the original assessment might have suffered from non-application of mind by the previous AO due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not deductible on interest on saving bank accounts and compulsory deposit accounts. It also ruled that the prospective amendment regarding TDS on recurring deposits was not applicable. Regarding interest on NPAs, the Tribunal followed RBI guidelines and allowed the assessee's appeal. The disallowance for amortization of premium on government securities was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA(2) is applicable only to unquoted equity shares, not preference shares. The AO erred in applying the valuation method for equity shares to preference shares.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal held that the generation of electricity is now a well-settled proposition to be considered as manufacture or production of an article or thing, qualifying for deduction under Section 32AC. The CIT(Appeals) order was upheld.
The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar set of appeals. It found no distinguishing arguments from the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO had considered only a portion of the transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all contracts and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute for the assessment year in question was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.