Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear to substantiate its claims. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹65,52,478/- as unexplained deposits was not sustainable as the transactions were explained by inter-bank transfers and cheque returns, matching bank entries. Similarly, the addition of ₹40,05,654/- on account of realization from sundry debtors was deleted as the books of account were not rejected and the explanation was reasonable. The addition of ₹3,58,428/- was also deleted as the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of penny stock transactions and additions under Section 68 for bogus long-term capital gains is covered by a recent Calcutta High Court decision. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the alleged contingent sales tax liability was not debited in the Profit & Loss account and not claimed as expenditure, the addition made by the CPC was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a direct nexus between cash withdrawals and the subsequent cash deposits. The AO and CIT(A) could not provide any contrary evidence to doubt the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal restored all issues related to unexplained cash deposits and cash credit entries to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide all details to explain the source of the alleged cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authorities have the power to entertain a new claim even in the absence of a revised return. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the assessee's claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the employee's contribution deposited before the return filing due date is allowable. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the tax dues were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the due taxes had been paid under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not explain why it became a NPA despite high profits and eligibility for deduction. Following principles of natural justice and similar group company cases, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of addition of unsecured loans to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It also restored the issue of disallowance of interest on such loans for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not explain why it became a NPA despite high profits and eligibility for deduction. Following principles of natural justice and similar group company cases, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies, and could not justify the premium paid for shares. Since the assessee provided no supporting documents or submissions, the order of the CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the AO for verification of documents submitted by the assessee regarding the TDS demand. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the claim for exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely due to a delay in furnishing the auditor's report (Form 10B), especially when it was available before the processing of the return. The adjustment made under Section 143(1) was not sustainable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was not based on any evidence or material. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should be set off in a manner most beneficial to the assessee. Regarding MAT credit, the Tribunal found it should be available to the assessee but remanded the issue for examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ALP issue, finding it covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding entertainment expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s 10% disallowance, while allowing the assessee's cross-objection on the ALP re-verification direction.
The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB is applicable only to assessees on whom search was conducted under Section 132. Since the assessment was under Section 153C, the penalty under Section 271AAB was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documents like the subscriber's return, audited accounts, and bank statements. It was also noted that the subscriber company had disclosed the investment and its own income, and the Revenue could not dispute the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the principle of natural justice requires the assessee to be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The alleged cash payment was actually an exchange of old jewellery for new items or a purchase through banking channels, and thus not a violation of Section 40A(3). Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
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 High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to defend its case on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the disposal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry by examining all the necessary documents, including Form 10, during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT(E) under Section 263 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the interest income should be treated as business income, considering the company's Memorandum of Association and past assessments. It also directed the allowance of interest expenses, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds for project development.
The Tribunal held that prior to Assessment Year 2017-18, set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against income under Section 115BBE was permissible. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 to allow the set-off.
The Tribunal found that the assessee faced genuine hardship in filing the return on time due to issues with its accountant and password reset. It held that the CBDT has the power under Section 119(2)(c) to relax such requirements for genuine hardship.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 5. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the set-aside assessment proceedings had accepted the returned income. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had filed a declaration in Form No. 5. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merit. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The decision was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, despite the final certificate not yet being issued.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The decision was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which aims to settle tax disputes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it was issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed. On merits, the Tribunal found that the share premium was justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the IT services were not stewardship activities and that the payment was at arm's length. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed immediately after the assessee requested time to submit explanations. Therefore, the issue of unexplained cash deposit was restored to the AO for fresh examination after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to cash deposits and subscriptions/donations. The issue of electricity charges was remanded to the AO for verification. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction for Salarpuria Touchstone due to lack of government approval. However, for Salarpuria Softzone, the assessee is eligible for deduction based on a High Court decision, even if CBDT notification was delayed. The PCIT's order was modified accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Vijay Shree Limited, stating that the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. For advances, it followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. For expenses, it agreed that TDS was not applicable on composite purchase bills and that TDS was duly deducted for advertisement expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had sustained an addition of only Rs. 61,239/-. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had reconciled the difference between the total amount received and the turnover shown in the trading account, with a minor discrepancy.