Loading ITAT cases…
465 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as the issue of purchases was already examined in the original assessment, and the subsequent reopening was based on stale or misrepresented information. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the claim for unabsorbed losses of the demerged company should be allowed, as it was a statutory claim arising from a High Court order and not subject to the strict limitations of Section 139(3) for claiming losses in the original return. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for proportional premium on redemption of convertible debentures.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of IBC, the assessee is estopped from pursuing the appeals. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to seek revival after the moratorium ends.
The Tribunal held that the crucial point of controversy needed to be restored to the files of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry to ascertain if the entire survey number was converted to non-agricultural purposes or if only the assessee's share was converted. The CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the assessee to produce further evidence. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow additional evidence from the assessee to establish whether the land falling within the assessee's share, sold via the impugned sale deed, was indeed converted to non-agricultural purposes. If this is established, the mere fact that it was sold for residential use or valued as non-agricultural land for stamp duty would not be material, and the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of Section 54B. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes only, remanding the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency, noting that the assessee's POCM method was accepted in subsequent assessment years. Previous assessment years where POCM was not accepted were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the ITAT's previous order, the remand report, and the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, and directed deletion of excess disallowance. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee discharged the initial onus by proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the loan transaction through banking channels and the lender's income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention of a mistake in the amount mentioned before the CIT(A) and that this requires verification. Therefore, the case was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the assessment was set aside to the AO for a fresh denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified. It followed previous orders of the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal, as well as a High Court judgment, which had consistently deleted similar additions in the assessee's own cases for prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 by affixture was not proper, as it lacked a local witness and was done without allowing the statutory period for filing a return. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the mandatory issuance of notice under Section 143(2) before passing an assessment order under Section 143(3). The Tribunal held that in the absence of such a notice, the assessment order would be void ab initio, and Section 292BB would not validate it. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the claim for unabsorbed losses of the demerged company should be allowed, as it was a statutory claim arising from a High Court order and not subject to the strict limitations of Section 139(3) for claiming losses in the original return. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for proportional premium on redemption of convertible debentures.
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, held that the AO is not permitted to change his view without a change in facts. The grievance of the Department was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard before the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 8-9 months in filing the revised return was not fatal to the refund claim. They condoned the delay and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the property was acquired on the date of the conveyance deed, making the capital gains short-term. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54 was rightly denied.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of re-opening the assessment due to lack of material evidence. It also dismissed the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s restrictions on additions, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on various additions and disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of enhanced compensation and interest was debatable at the time of filing the return, and the assessee acted under a bonafide belief based on previous Tribunal decisions. Therefore, penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in declining the claim for higher depreciation. Following binding precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the land, being situated within a municipality with a population of over 10,000, does not qualify as agricultural land for the purpose of exemption under Section 10(37), as per the definition in Section 2(14)(iii)(a). The assessee's interpretation of the population criteria was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the validity of re-opening the assessment due to lack of material evidence. It also dismissed the Revenue's grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s restrictions on additions, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on various additions and disallowances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised a new ground regarding the validity of the penalty notice not specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee stated her husband made the payment and the husband admitted to it under oath, the assessee had discharged her onus to explain the source of investment. The addition was therefore not sustainable in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that while the advances might be deemed dividends, they cannot exceed the accumulated profits of the lending companies. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of accumulated profits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment as there was a prima facie reason to believe income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- as the assessee had demonstrated cash withdrawals which could have been used for the deposits.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A are only permissible if they are based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, following established High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the appeals cannot proceed due to the overriding provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Revenue can revive the appeals after the moratorium period ends or the company is revived.
The Tribunal held that while the advances might be deemed dividends, they cannot exceed the accumulated profits of the lending companies. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of accumulated profits.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording specific satisfaction. Following its own precedents in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording specific satisfaction. Following its own precedents in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeals cannot proceed due to the overriding provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Revenue can revive the appeals after the moratorium period ends or the company is revived.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should have conducted an independent examination of the evidence if the AO had not done so. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the additional evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to make necessary inquiries on crucial aspects, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisional action of the Pr.CIT was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the fees received for management support services are not in the nature of FTS but constitute business income. Since the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, this business income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee filed Form 67 within the extended period of limitation due to the Supreme Court's orders regarding COVID-19 related extensions. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Rule 128(9) does not mandate disallowance for delayed filing of Form 67, making it a directory requirement.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer. It noted that even if the assessee is taxed as an AOP, Section 167B itself provides an exception for societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, implying it might not be taxed at the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal restored the issues regarding bonus deduction and savings bank interest to the Assessing Officer for verification. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice and allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B should not be charged as the assessee had repeatedly requested the revenue to adjust the tax liability against the seized amount. For the penalty under Section 271AAB, the Tribunal found that the income was offered for taxation even before the search, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the fees received for management support services are not in the nature of FTS but constitute business income. Since the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, this business income is not taxable in India.