Loading ITAT cases…
159 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that notices sent to the old email address after amalgamation are invalid as the original entity ceases to exist. Therefore, the appeal should be restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the CIT(Appeals) should have adopted a sympathetic view considering the circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB can only be imposed if a search has been initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessment was framed under section 153C and not following a search on the assessee, the penalty was not imposable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The Tribunal found that the law on this issue was settled by the Supreme Court and previous divergent High Court opinions did not assist the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, considering the COVID-19 period extensions. It further held that only employee contributions not deposited by the due date are disallowable, not employer contributions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The Tribunal found that the law on this issue was settled by the Supreme Court and previous divergent High Court opinions did not assist the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the assessee's contribution to PF & ESI amounting to Rs.23,47,770/- and Rs.4,69,224/-. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Limited, which states that employee contributions not paid before the due date of filing the return are not deductible.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and taxes were paid. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if Form No. 5 was not issued.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already accounted for the provision for doubtful debts by netting it off against other provisions, effectively offering the net non-taxable notional income as tax. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. The Tribunal held that the Associated Enterprise (AE) could be considered the tested party for raw material purchases and that administrative and IT support services were not stewardship in nature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus under Section 68 to explain the nature and source of the credit, including the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The Tribunal found no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of the cash deposit being from past savings could not be disregarded without contrary evidence. Relying on a CBDT circular and a co-ordinate bench decision, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing loan details and bank statements. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct an independent inquiry to doubt the genuineness of the transactions, thus the addition u/s 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits with supporting documentation and that the AO's addition was based on conjecture and surmises.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. clearly distinguishes between employer's and employee's contributions. The employee's contribution, being held in trust, must be deposited by the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) for deduction, and the extended due date under section 43B is not applicable.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for an inadvertent mistake. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the assessee furnishes the complete assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, as the date of issue is when it is set in motion for delivery, not when it is signed. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void and non-est.
The Tribunal held that cess paid on export and consignment sales is a legitimate business expenditure as it is not recovered from customers. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest disallowance and remanded the other part for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that grants received for specific infrastructure projects, which were utilized for those purposes and unutilized portions refunded, do not constitute income of the assessee. The nature of the receipt, not the book entry, determines its taxability.
The Tribunal, considering the low-margin nature of the business and the assessee's inability to provide complete details, partly allowed the appeal. It directed the AO to compute income by applying a gross profit rate of 0.75% on the total turnover.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to interest paid on loans from relatives, finding no material to support excess interest payment. For other estimated disallowances, the Tribunal reduced the quantum of additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 147 without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time is without jurisdiction. The requirement of Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates the assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the first notice as it was not served. The assessee also complied with the second notice. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the assessee's Director. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The issue revolved around the applicability of Section 50C, where the AO had invoked the stamp duty valuation, while the assessee claimed the actual sale consideration was lower.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was an abuse of the process of law as the underlying revision order was already quashed. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and orders, including the CIT(A)'s order, were null and void.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form No. 67 before the due date is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit solely for the delay in filing Form No. 67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the brokerage expenses as business expenditure. It remitted the issue of deemed dividend to the AO for further examination. The 80G deduction claim was also remitted to the AO for verification of documents.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C was not applicable as the transaction was a sale of investments, not unexplained expenditure. The lower authorities erred in treating the sale proceeds as unexplained expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existent entity due to amalgamation is not a curable defect under Section 292B of the Act. The reassessment proceedings initiated on such a notice are invalid. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is also vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the miscellaneous income, primarily grants received from the West Bengal Government for the society's objects, should not be treated as income from other sources. It is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal, and the revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions without properly examining the assessment records and the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the share capital. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to employee contribution disallowance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, it allowed the ground regarding the set-off of brought forward business loss, directing the AO to allow the set-off.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). This was due to the assessee's failure to appear or provide any details to substantiate the share capital and the expenses claimed under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe' and was vitiated by 'borrowed satisfaction'. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries before reopening.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the basic ingredients required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in share allotment dates and premiums charged, and that the company's main objects did not align with its claimed business activities.
The Tribunal held that interest on compensation is taxable under 'income from other sources' and a 50% deduction under Section 57(iv) is allowable. Exemption under Section 11 is not barred for compensation income.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was indeed passed by an Assessing Officer lacking territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal as the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the revenue authorities and the Tribunal itself. The assessee's lack of active prosecution of the appeal further contributed to the decision.
The Tribunal found that the share subscriber companies were shell companies with no regular business activity or sufficient income to justify the investments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was reversed.
The Tribunal found that the share subscriber companies were shell companies with no regular business activity or sufficient income to justify the investments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to explain the genuineness of the transaction, particularly the high share premium charged on shares of a company with poor turnover and profit track record. The explanations provided were not sufficient to satisfy the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the AO who passed the order under Section 143(3) did not issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). Furthermore, the jurisdiction for the case lay with a different ITO, not the one who issued the notice.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an extensive inquiry regarding the share capital and premium received by the assessee, applying his mind and taking a possible view permissible in law. Therefore, the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in examining the claim afresh and allowing a higher deduction, as appellate authorities can determine the correct tax liability. However, the deduction cannot exceed the gross total income as per Section 80A(2).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in examining the fresh details and allowing a higher deduction, as appellate authorities can determine the correct tax liability. However, the deduction cannot exceed the gross total income as per Section 80A(2).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The mere non-appearance of directors of shareholder companies before the AO was not a sufficient ground to invoke Section 68.