Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 2 of 4
Since the assessee has successfully opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the competent authority has accepted it, there is nothing left for the tribunal to adjudicate. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee before the application of Finance Act, 2022, then no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be made. The amendment by Finance Act, 2022, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that mere volume of transactions and utilization of borrowed funds are not sufficient to alter the classification of investments in shares/mutual funds as capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was remitted for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was therefore deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that mere volume of transactions and utilization of borrowed funds are not sufficient to alter the classification of investments in shares/mutual funds as capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that mere volume of transactions and utilization of borrowed funds are not sufficient to alter the classification of investments in shares/mutual funds as capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the amended explanations to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act 2021, were not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Vijay Shree Limited, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that mere volume of transactions and utilization of borrowed funds are not sufficient to alter the classification of investments in shares/mutual funds as capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was made without properly considering the facts. The Tribunal agreed that the sale was a mistake by the broker and that the income was already offered and taxed in the hands of the individual under the IDS 2016 and accepted in the individual's scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the issue was resolved by the CPC under section 154, the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should have been treated as redundant. The CIT(Appeals) erred by making observations on depreciation without proper notice for enhancement.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee's accounting treatment and subsequent adjustments for finance lease income and securitization income were found to be in compliance with RBI guidelines and accounting standards, and no prejudice was caused to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all three conditions stipulated in Section 271AAA(2) of the Act. These conditions included admitting the undisclosed income, specifying its source, and paying the due tax and interest.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue should have withdrawn the appeal but failed to do so. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as it was pending unnecessarily due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) meant it was as if the clause never existed. Therefore, the transactions were not specified domestic transactions, and the Assessing Officer's order and DRP's directions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on the reimbursement theory was not applicable as the payments were not mere reimbursements. The matter was restored to the AO to examine if the payees had accounted for the income and paid taxes, and also to verify payments to Kolkata Port Trust under Section 196.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) meant it was as if the clause never existed. Therefore, the transactions were not specified domestic transactions, and the Assessing Officer's order and DRP's directions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) meant it was as if the clause never existed. Therefore, the transactions were not specified domestic transactions, and the Assessing Officer's order and DRP's directions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CPC could not summarily reject the claim for want of complete details. The issue was debatable and should not have been adjusted without proper verification. Therefore, the assessee's claim for TDS credit was allowed.
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the assessee's claim of closed business and departed staff was not a valid reason for not producing supporting evidence for audited books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal accepted the revenue's application for correction. It rectified the typographical error, confirming the correct pronouncement date of the order as 10/05/2019.
The Tribunal held that since no revision order under Section 263 was found in the departmental records, it was to be assumed that no such order was ever passed. Consequently, the assessment order passed relying on a non-existent revision order was treated as void.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. Imposing tax on hypothetical income is impermissible in law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed suo-moto disallowed the prior period expenses in its return of income. Therefore, the PCIT's observation that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that proper inquiry into the basic parameters of the transaction was not conducted at the assessment or first appellate stage. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT misunderstood the balance sheet regarding advances from customers and that the inclusion of VAT in project expenses was revenue neutral as it was part of closing stock. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as the amount was correctly reflected as a liability in the proprietorship concern's books, representing advances received on behalf of the partnership firm. The identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties were not in dispute.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee may have faced problems complying with notices due to the Covid pandemic. To ensure fairness, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to file submissions.
The Tribunal held that the JDA did not constitute a 'transfer' of a capital asset or stock-in-trade, as possession was given only for development purposes and the owner retained ownership rights. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable at the time of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted the necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,95,160/- in this regard, and the assessee had not appealed this specific disallowance. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, stating that in the present case, there was no surplus generated by the assessee that was invested without being required for immediate business purposes. The assessee's business involves earning interest income from members on loans sanctioned and incurring interest expenses on member deposits, which are business activities. Therefore, the net interest income earned from the co-operative banks is chargeable to tax as business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT's opinion must be legal and judicious, not arbitrary, and that the revisionary power under Section 263 is not meant to find fault with every assessment order without proper inquiry. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT was quashed, and the grounds of appeal by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order because the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities or the Tribunal and did not provide any submissions. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly applied the law as it stood for the relevant assessment year. The Principal Commissioner erred in applying a later amendment to Section 44AE and setting aside the assessment order without addressing the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. It also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified as the tax was deducted and deposited before the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim of application/accumulation of income and allow it if found correct as per the Act.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account prior to demonetization was sufficient to explain the source of the cash deposit. The CIT(Appeals) had erred in not considering the earlier cash withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF & ESI contributions was uncalled for as the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return. Regarding the profit on sale of the motor car, the Tribunal found that the sale consideration was correctly reduced in the depreciation block, and no separate income needed to be shown.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was not examined on merits by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination and verification of the assessee's claim, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from earlier withdrawals to explain the deposit. The revenue authorities failed to provide contrary evidence to disprove the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in making the impugned additions. The AO acknowledged receiving documents from the assessee and subscriber companies but insisted on the personal appearance of directors without examining the submitted documents for discrepancies. The AO did not specify which subscriber or transaction was not genuine and on what grounds. The Tribunal found that the AO could have taken an adverse inference only if he had pointed out discrepancies or insufficiency in the evidence and explained why further investigation was needed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, as it merely cited case laws without discussing their applicability to the facts. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 were ordered to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the foundation for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) is the addition made to the income. Since the addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the basis for imposing penalty failed.
The Tribunal held that the excess stocks were duly accounted for in the assessee's books of accounts, leading to a higher Gross Profit and Net Profit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. If the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply to recall the order dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee retains the liberty to recall the order if the scheme proposal is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the claims of long-term capital gains and losses were bogus accommodation entries through penny stock companies. Following the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the claims of long-term capital gains and losses were bogus accommodation entries through penny stock companies. Following the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.
The Tribunal rectified a clerical mistake in its earlier order regarding the assessee's Permanent Account Number (PAN). The corrected PAN number will now be used for all future references.