Loading ITAT cases…
236 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. It further directed that 10% of the dividend income be disallowed in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's nature of business.
The Tribunal set aside the issues regarding the loan amount and miscellaneous expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication, stating that the AO was not given adequate opportunity to verify the evidence. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed due to a significant delay.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies even if the payment was made before the previous year's end, following Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions. However, the issue of TDS compliance was remanded for verification. The Tribunal also upheld the treatment of carbon credits as capital receipts, dismissing the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the sale proceeds of KAFL shares as undisclosed income and deleting the addition under section 69C. The disallowance under section 14A was also directed to be deleted due to lack of proper satisfaction by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable for tax audit, making the due date for filing the return September 30, 2013. Since the return was filed on September 26, 2013, it was within the due date, and the AO's levy of 10% penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(a) was correct. The CIT's revision order was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the date of payment for excise duty via cheque can be considered the date of the cheque only if the assessee had sufficient funds to honor it between the cheque date and its encashment. Since this was not verified, the issue was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide and not found to be false. The fact that the assessee's mother filed a return of income which was accepted by the revenue, and the circumstances of her age and location, were considered sufficient to discharge the assessee's burden.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 12A(2) of the Act should be construed retrospectively, allowing the assessee exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the regular grounds of appeal regarding the validity of proceedings and merits were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies even if the payment was made before the previous year's end, following Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions. However, the issue of TDS compliance was remanded for verification. The Tribunal also upheld the treatment of carbon credits as capital receipts, dismissing the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal held that the seized cash should have been adjusted as advance tax on the date of the assessee's declaration, and interest under Section 234B should be recalculated accordingly. The Tribunal also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for earlier years, similar issues were set aside to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal found that the distinction between interest earned on surplus funds versus funds payable to members, as highlighted in the Totgars' and Tumkur Merchants' cases, was not adequately examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 12A(2) of the Act should be construed retrospectively, allowing the assessee exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the regular grounds of appeal regarding the validity of proceedings and merits were not adjudicated.