Loading ITAT cases…
188 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A, the AO must verify if investments were made from own funds in earlier years. For advances written off, the AO needs to examine if they were given in the normal course of business. The write-off of TDS recoverable was allowed as a trading loss.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not verify the assessee's accounts and claim before applying Rule 8D. Following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal quashed the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities and had undertaken entrepreneurial and investment risks, thus qualifying for the deduction under Section 80-IA. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits, including sale of jewellery and loans from relatives. The fact that some parties were untraceable or failed to appear before the AO did not automatically invalidate the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the genuine medical reasons provided by the assessee. It set aside the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to get the signature verified by a handwriting expert and coordinate with police authorities regarding the assessee's complaints.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the TDS disallowance, the AO was directed to verify if the recipients offered taxes. For the bogus purchase, the AO was directed to consider the assessee's explanation regarding credit notes.
The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the CIT's order and that the AO could not rectify the order of a higher authority under the guise of rectification. The rectification order was also found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of taxable profit on undisclosed purchases and circulating capital in undisclosed purchases to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, disallowances under Section 40A(3) and additions under Section 69 were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly invoked Section 14A and Rule 8D, as the assessee's suo-motu disallowance was not satisfactory. The disallowance was upheld based on the facts and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A, the AO must verify if investments were made from own funds in earlier years. For advances written off, the AO needs to examine if they were given in the normal course of business. The write-off of TDS recoverable was allowed as a trading loss.
The Tribunal held that the financial crisis and subsequent delayed TDS payments constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing returns. Therefore, the penalty levied was cancelled as it was a technical or venial breach.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued under section 274 was defective as it did not specify the grounds for penalty (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following precedent, the penalty order was deemed invalid and cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that the issue under appeal had been resolved by the AO's rectification. Consequently, the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal was accepted.
The Tribunal held that Section 50B was erroneously applied as it was a case of retirement from a partnership, not a slump sale. The assessee had correctly claimed a capital loss, but omitted to disallow it in the memo of income.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary action under Section 263 was unjustified as the issue pertained to exempt income, which had no tax impact on the revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary action under Section 263 was unjustified as the issue pertained to exempt income, which had no tax impact on the revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal filed by the assessee. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal noted that the Calcutta High Court had held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable, not paid. However, the assessee raised new contentions regarding the applicability of Section 194I and payment thresholds, which required verification by the AO.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the name change, finding the CIT(A) had correctly addressed it. For Section 14A, the Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted due to sufficient own funds. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was to be recomputed by the AO considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory after the filing of a return in response to a notice under Section 148. Since no such valid notice was issued after the assessee filed its return, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee's cash withdrawals and the circulation of funds within disclosed bank accounts. It found no element of income involved and that the lower authorities had erroneously invoked Section 68.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory after the filing of a return in response to a notice under Section 148. Since no such valid notice was issued after the assessee filed its return, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits through withdrawals and cash flow statements, demonstrating sufficient available cash. It concluded that the AO and CIT(A) erroneously invoked Section 68 as the transactions were merely circulation of funds within disclosed accounts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the penalty. It reasoned that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on mere disallowance of a claim, especially when the issue is debatable and the High Court has admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal held that only 1% of exempted income should be disallowed under Section 14A for the assessment years prior to 2008-09, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The issue of slump sale and depreciation disallowance was remanded for further examination.
The Tribunal held that only 1% of exempted income should be disallowed under Section 14A for the assessment years prior to 2008-09, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The issue of slump sale and depreciation disallowance was remanded for further examination.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance for transport charges paid to M/s. Baba Transport to the AO for verification, considering the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). For other transport payments and screening work, the issue was also set aside to the AO. Regarding sundry creditors, the addition for the opening balance difference was deleted, and the remaining amount was directed to be verified by the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the name change, finding the CIT(A) had correctly addressed it. For Section 14A, the Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted due to sufficient own funds. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was to be recomputed by the AO considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO's file. The assessee is directed to submit all details to the AO for verification, who will then pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) should be allowed as deduction, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi and Calcutta High Courts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the interest subsidy and excise refund were capital receipts, not taxable income, following the precedent set by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the assessee's claim regarding deduction under section 80IB for lab subsidy.
The Tribunal held that since the payment was received via cheque, TDS was deducted, and the assessee readily agreed to the addition upon being confronted, there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that 'profit due to change in method for providing depreciation' is not an eligible adjustment for computing book profit under Section 115JB as it is not listed in Explanation 1 to Sub-section (2) of the said section. The provisions of Section 115JB are exhaustive for this purpose.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue of leave encashment provision to the Assessing Officer pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on Section 43B(f). The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the VAT provision disallowance, agreeing that it was an ascertained liability and not covered by Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the assessment is made under Section 115JB of the Act and the alleged concealment does not lead to tax evasion. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue of leave encashment provision to the Assessing Officer pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on Section 43B(f). The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the VAT provision disallowance, agreeing that it was an ascertained liability and not covered by Section 43B.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the interest subsidy and excise refund were capital receipts, not taxable income, following the precedent set by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the assessee's claim regarding deduction under section 80IB for lab subsidy.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of vigilance, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries, and his acceptance of the assessee's disallowance was not erroneous.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not seriously interested in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. It was found that the assessee had placed all material facts before the Assessing Officer, who had examined them and allowed the claim.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had not considered the condonation petition properly and had violated natural justice by dismissing the appeal without a hearing on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly considered the Rs. 16,50,000/- as an unexplained cash deposit. It was actually an account transfer from a customer for sales proceeds, supported by bank statements and cash book.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. Since the revenue had no objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate, even if the AO was not initially empowered to make additions on share capital. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate, even if the AO was not initially empowered to make additions on share capital. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be valid.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the Revenue's counsel. Based on this application, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise an assessment order if the AO's inquiry was not proper or adequate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding it was not based on irrelevant considerations and the AO had not taken a possible view.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.