Loading ITAT cases…
94 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries into the source of cash deposits, including issuing notices under Section 133(6) and examining bank statements and financial statements. The Tribunal found that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as a permissible view was taken by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds were covered by previous decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal adopted the coordinate bench's findings and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that disallowance u/s 14A was uncalled for as the AO did not fulfill the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 14A. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest expenditure disallowance as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal further decided to remand the issue of share application money for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order lacked proper inquiry into the investment in unlisted equity shares. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds were covered by previous decisions of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal adopted the coordinate bench's findings and dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and not decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance u/s 14A was uncalled for as the AO did not fulfill the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 14A. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest expenditure disallowance as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal further decided to remand the issue of share application money for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, exceeding the advances made to subsidiaries and the investment in the building. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was made in violation of the first proviso to section 147 as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that once deduction is allowed in the initial year after due verification, it cannot be denied in subsequent years. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merit and produce the summoned parties.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found the assessee's claim for set off of brought forward loss to be genuine and in accordance with Section 74. It held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the issue to the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that borrowings from NBFCs and banks cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. It also found that the addition for increased current liability was unsustainable as the AO failed to point out any specific defect. The ad hoc disallowance of lorry hire charges was also deemed impermissible without specific findings of defects in accounts.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had already examined the transactions and taken a possible view. The PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The assessee successfully completed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme formalities, including payment of taxes. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order passed after the revisionary proceedings did not make any additions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, especially considering the pandemic situation. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was issued in a mechanical manner without specifying the limb for penalty, which is a substantive defect. This defect is not curable and renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition was incorrect as the donation was never claimed as expenditure by the assessee. The CIT(A) made contradictory findings by noting the absence of expenditure claim but confirming the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO reopened the assessment in a casual and whimsical manner without applying his mind to the information received. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the assessee's meager income and the huge cash deposits, suggesting the AO failed to identify the real person behind the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. The DR had no objection to withdrawing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) could not be allowed without the required CBDT notification. However, additions based on alleged "on-money" were deleted as there was no incriminating material to support the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased and sold shares at the same price, indicating they were stock-in-trade and not accommodation entries. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of recognition by the payee organization under Section 35(1)(ii) does not affect the assessee's right to claim deduction. Following previous judgments, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CSR expenses were indeed examined by the AO, and the interest and VAT remission were directly linked to the assessee's business activities, thus eligible for Section 80IE deduction. Consequently, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the specific limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) on which the penalty was proposed. This defect was considered substantive and not curable.
The Tribunal held that the amount written off was a trade receivable (bad debt) of a revenue nature. Following the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Limited, the Tribunal allowed the write-off as a business expenditure since necessary entries were made in the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were reimbursements of expenses incurred by or on behalf of the cultivators and not the assessee's income or expenditure. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the facts and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments. It also ruled that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of shareholders, as well as the fair market value of shares. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of power under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed examined the issues raised by the PCIT during the assessment proceedings and had taken a plausible view. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the NCLT order approving the resolution plan has overriding effect and extinguishes all prior dues, including tax liabilities. Therefore, the appeal and consequential liabilities stand terminated.
The Tribunal held that the impairment loss is not allowable under Section 41(2) as the assets were not sold, discarded, demolished, or destroyed. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the sundry balances written off, including stock, as a genuine business loss despite being claimed under the wrong head.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The share capital raised by the assessee was considered unproved due to lack of supporting evidence.
The tribunal allowed the deduction for PF/ESI paid before the IT return due date, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. For the service tax and TDS issues, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification due to factual disputes and incorrect reporting.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, if employees' contribution to ESI and PF is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it is allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner in detail and made no additions. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ill health and the availability of audited financial documents. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible for deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding this issue was held to be prospective.