Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal restored all issues raised on merit to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated beyond the four-year period without any new material, constituting a 'change of opinion'. The reopening was based solely on information already present in the assessee's return, making it unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that no remand report was requested or received by the CIT(A) when deciding the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to examine the issues afresh after calling for a remand report from the AO.
The tribunal held that for bad debts, it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, reversing the disallowance. For PF/ESI contributions, the tribunal ruled that the amendment making such belated payments disallowable is prospective, thus allowing the deduction for the assessment years in question.
The tribunal held that for bad debts, it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, reversing the disallowance. For PF/ESI contributions, the tribunal ruled that the amendment making such belated payments disallowable is prospective, thus allowing the deduction for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim and grant the TDS credit if the assessee demonstrates that the income was reflected in their books of account and offered to tax. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, the disallowance of employee's PF & ESI contribution paid before the return filing due date was incorrect, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The TDS credit issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored all issues raised on merit to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit by demonstrating prior withdrawals from its bank account. The Tribunal also noted procedural irregularities in the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment paid during the year is allowable. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A for interest is required if the assessee has sufficient own funds for investments, and disallowances under Section 14A are not to be considered for book profit calculation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not initiated by the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) failed to issue a valid notice under Section 274. Furthermore, the penalty was levied on notional interest, which does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the AO's dual treatment of similar bank deposits was unjustified. It directed that the entire cash deposit be treated as gross receipts from profession, with 50% considered as income from profession. The post-demonetization deposits were also to be treated as business income, not undisclosed income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that since the excess stock was part of the business income, only the profit element should be taxed. Considering the assessee's offer, the addition was restricted to 12% of the excess stock value.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB was wrongly imposed as the disclosure was made voluntarily in the ordinary course of business and not in response to any specific query or during search proceedings. The excess stock was also accounted for at 'NIL' cost in the books.
The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock and bogus long-term capital gains is squarely covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock and bogus long-term capital gains is squarely covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, confirming that the assessee failed to substantiate the source and mode of acquiring shares. The assessee's lack of cooperation and failure to provide verifiable details led to the dismissal of the appeal.
The ITAT held that the disallowance was not in accordance with law, as the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the profit share was validly determined by the LLP agreement, considering the assessee's expertise. The AO's disallowance was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court which had affirmed the Tribunal's earlier order on the same issue. The assessee did not press its cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) was for a debatable issue regarding the nature of club expenses. Such adjustments cannot be made under Section 143(1). Therefore, the addition was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had validly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 as the original assessment order suffered from lack of adequate enquiry and was prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed an ex parte order without affording the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal filed by the assessee against the same order had already been decided in their favour. Consequently, the current appeal was rendered infructuous and was allowed to be withdrawn.
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 CIT(A) erred by entertaining additional evidence without giving the revenue an opportunity to rebut it, as per Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition related to undisclosed contractual income as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the transaction from the accounts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It was held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order and grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition made by the CIT(A) had already been cancelled by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalty levied based on that enhancement was also ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting some disallowances related to motor car expenses, telephone expenses, and business promotion expenses. It also directed the AO to consider the returned loss of Rs. 1,32,760.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not deal with the merits of the case. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present documents. The matter was not considered on merits and lacked fruitful discussion.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment and additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been quashed by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty had no valid foundation.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Vijay Shree Limited, which was applicable as the Explanation-5 to Section 43B was not retrospective.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the Pr. CIT were not examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's decision to set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was treated as infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI was not justified as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return, and the relevant Explanation to Section 43B was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. The issue of TDS credit was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the issue of netting off interest expenses against income is a debatable issue requiring verification and investigation, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, it cannot be rectified under Section 154.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the disallowance was ad-hoc and the assessee's books were audited. While not fully deleting the disallowance, the Tribunal reduced it to 5% of the miscellaneous expenses, amounting to Rs. 3,38,113/-, in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that organizing a golf tournament is not an educational activity. However, it allowed the deduction of sponsorship received for the event, limiting the disallowance to the excess expenditure over sponsorship.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of unpaid bonus to the AO for verification of payment before filing the return. It allowed the disallowance of store items as business expenditure. The issue of TDS was also remitted to the AO for verification. Regarding Section 14A, the AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on judicial precedents. The cash payment issue was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the provision for entry tax as a deductible expenditure because the assessee had already paid the entry tax in advance and the provision was for adjustment after the disposal of the pending writ petition.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT exercised revision jurisdiction in a casual and vague manner, without proper application of mind or giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard on all grounds. Consequently, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the jurisdictional High Court's view favoring the assessee would hold.
The Tribunal held that if the payments were indeed made to the assessee company and the TDS was wrongly deposited under the firm's PAN due to a clerical error by the payers, the matter should be examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim if evidence confirms the TDS belongs to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's practice of claiming interest expenditure when actually paid to depositors, even if accrued in a prior period, was consistently followed and not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by a prior order, the penalty levied on those additions had no basis. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.