Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for IND AS-109 adjustment was due to incorrect reporting in the ITR and restored the issue to the AO for verification. For the pension and gratuity contribution, the Tribunal found evidence of timely payment and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of allowing credit period for realization of sale proceeds to Associated Enterprises (AEs) should be considered along with the main international transaction. It directed the AO/TPO to re-do the exercise of determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) by considering working capital adjustments and the cost of funds, rather than lending rates.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing during the penalty proceedings, a violation of natural justice, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders by filing relevant evidence. The addition was based on a retracted statement, and the CIT(A) erred in sustaining it without considering the facts.
The Tribunal noted the delays in filing the appeals, which were attributed to reasons such as the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative issues. Citing principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal condoned the delays for all three appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was indeed a duplicate. Considering the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Departmental Representative's no-objection, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and consequently dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the 89-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging "reasonable and sufficient cause." It set aside the CIT(E)'s order, remitting the case back for fresh consideration with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to duly consider all submitted evidence for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal condoned the 89-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging "reasonable and sufficient cause." It set aside the CIT(E)'s order, remitting the case back for fresh consideration with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to duly consider all submitted evidence for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming that the assessee's financial statements clearly indicated its main business was poultry trading, and income from hiring out lorries was an independent stream, not integral to its core operations. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Gupta Global Exim (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that higher depreciation is applicable only if the assessee is primarily in the business of running vehicles on hire, which was not established in this case.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) ought to have considered the application on merits. The Tribunal noted that the law regarding trust registration has been amended, causing confusion. While the CBDT extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to 30.06.2024, the assessee filed on 29.09.2024. However, the application was filed at least six months before the expiry of the provisional registration. The assessee claimed genuine hardship due to ambiguity in law and lack of professional assistance, and that the delay was unintentional. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application in a routine manner without considering the explanation for delay or the merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to give another opportunity to the appellant-trust to explain its case, consider the application for condonation of delay, and decide the application on merits after considering relevant details. The order of the CIT(E) rejecting the application was set aside and the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act is compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), it found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances, and the Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and the advances. Both disallowances were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act is compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), it found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances, and the Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and the advances. Both disallowances were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act is compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), it found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances, and the Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and the advances. Both disallowances were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s 50% profit estimation to be exorbitant. It instead applied an average net profit rate of 2.50% based on the assessee's past and subsequent years' disclosures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, observing that the reasons were bonafide and supported by Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had mechanically rejected the applications without a speaking order.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order was mechanical, non-speaking, and lacked proper reasoning, thus denying natural justice. It observed that the CIT(E) failed to consider the detailed evidence of charitable activities submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the written submissions and supporting documents filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the written submissions and supporting documents filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the written submissions and supporting documents filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s 50% profit estimation to be exorbitant. It instead applied an average net profit rate of 2.50% based on the assessee's past and subsequent years' disclosures.
The Tribunal held that the land sale in question was part of the original transaction already taxed in AY 2011-12. The assessee's name in the subsequent sale deed was merely to confirm the chain of title and did not represent a fresh transfer or give rise to new capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the written submissions and supporting documents filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the bank guarantee commission is allowable as a business expenditure, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were vague and general, and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely filing and the assessee's own inaction.
The Tribunal noted that while receipts for corpus donations mentioned the purpose, evidence of actual utilization and proof of contractual obligation for the expenses disallowance were lacking. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, observing that the reasons were bonafide and supported by Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had mechanically rejected the applications without a speaking order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on the specific grounds of appeal. Citing the Bombay High Court, the tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits by a speaking order, even if the assessee fails to participate. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The ITAT noted the material change in the quantum proceedings, where the CIT(A) had deleted additions for some years and remanded others. Considering these developments and in the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the appeals, including the condonation of delay, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal observed a serious discrepancy in the affidavit for delay condonation, noting it was notarized on 05.02.2025 but referred to the appeal being filed on 13.02.2025. Finding the affidavit to be a 'bogus document' and that the assessee did not approach with clean hands, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal noted that the seized material and satisfaction note related to Rs.10 lakhs receivable, while the addition was for Rs.17 lakhs of unexplained investment, for which no incriminating material was found. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment under Section 153C, any addition must be based on incriminating material. Since the addition of Rs.17 lakhs was not linked to any seized incriminating material, it was deemed without jurisdiction and deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act is compensatory in nature and thus allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), it found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances, and the Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and the advances. Both disallowances were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal observed contradictory claims regarding the submission of evidence. It found that the assessee had furnished bank certificates and statements supporting the auto-renewal of existing FDs and the source of new deposits from NRE funds. Therefore, the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the submitted evidence and a decision in accordance with the law, with directions to delete the additions if the source is explained.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notices by the CIT after the prescribed deadline, without raising objections about the limitation period, created a bona fide belief in the assessee that the delay was condoned or not material. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed discrepancies between the assessee's claim, bank records, and Commercial Tax Department's liability statements. It found the facts of cited cases distinguishable and deemed proper verification necessary. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh examination to determine the genuineness of the claimed payment and ensure it was credited to the Commercial Tax Department, providing the assessee a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order was mechanical, non-speaking, and lacked proper reasoning, thus denying natural justice. It observed that the CIT(E) failed to consider the detailed evidence of charitable activities submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee a proper hearing.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim in light of the conditions for deduction. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal also set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering the discrepancy in the claim and the two Form 10DA filings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the son's transfer of 71,000 USD (Rs. 50.03 lakhs) on 09.10.2019, used for the time deposit, which appeared bona fide as a source. However, the Gift Deed was dated 15.09.2022 and did not specify the relationship. The assessee also failed to provide conclusive evidence (like passport showing assessee's name) to establish the father-son relationship. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the father-son relationship; if established, the addition should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for registration. It was noted that the trust was established long before Section 12AB was enacted, making compliance with the timeline impossible. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' (the law does not compel a man to do that which cannot possibly be performed).
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim in light of the conditions for deduction. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal also set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering the discrepancy in the claim and the two Form 10DA filings.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) had not considered the relevant records and evidence filed by the assessee before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application in a routine manner without considering the explanation for delay and on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed to consider the application for condonation of delay and the application on merits.
The Tribunal held that the order of the learned CIT(E) was to be set aside and the issue was to be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal found that the first ground for rejection by the CIT(E), concerning the incorrect section code in Form-10AB, was technical in nature. The Tribunal opined that if an incorrect application was filed, the CIT(E) should have directed the assessee to file a correct application and then considered it on merits, provided it was filed by the due date. The second ground for rejection, that the assessee had not carried out charitable activities, was found to be contrary to the material on record. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was running a 150-bedded hospital for public benefit, a fact ignored by the CIT(E). Furthermore, the assessee already possessed a 12A registration for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that the application for Section 80G registration should not have been rejected on technical reasons, especially when the assessee had provided explanations for the incorrect code. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a correct Form-10AB with proper particulars, and the CIT(E) was to consider this revised form as if it were filed on the original date. The CIT(E) was also directed to consider the relevant details proving the activities carried out in previous financial years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus for loans from M/s. Bhavani Ads (Rs. 5 lakhs) and Mr. Ramulu (Rs. 2 lakhs) by providing sufficient evidence. However, for the remaining amounts from Mr. Ramulu (Rs. 50,000/-), Mr. Krishna (Rs. 50,000/-), and Ms. Swetha (Rs. 40,000/-), the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence.