Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by its own previous order for AY 2020-21. It reiterated that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable, and the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was derived from operational funds required for the society's business activities, not surplus funds. Therefore, it qualifies as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing evidence of the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The loan was advanced through banking channels, the lender had sufficient funds, interest was paid and TDS deducted, and the loan was repaid.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the Boral Union Cooperative Bank accounts belonged to the partnership firm and were duly accounted for in its books. Similarly, cash deposits in the State Bank of India account were justified by the assessee's reported income.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of shortfall in sale consideration is confirmed. However, regarding the cost of acquisition, the issue was restored to the AO for re-examination of facts and calculation of indexation benefit from the year of expenditure. The claim for deduction u/s 54F was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was non-speaking and lacked justification for the ad hoc disallowance. The CIT(Appeals) also erred by misinterpreting the cash payment limit applicable for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from SBI deposits was business income, as these deposits were made to comply with the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased shares from third parties, not directly from the company, and had made payments through account payee cheques. The Assessing Officer erred by only considering direct investment into the company.
The Tribunal found that the AO's approach of treating all demonetization period deposits as unexplained money was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, stating that the AO did not consider the realities of running a business, including maintaining cash for transactions and providing credit facilities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions by providing substantial documentary evidence. The Revenue failed to bring anything contrary on record to justify the adverse view taken by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not correctly adjudicated the issue of bogus loss, having confused it with bogus long-term capital gains. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI deposit should be remitted to the AO for verification. Regarding the Section 80JJAA deduction, the Tribunal held that the CPC erred in disallowing it as there was no enabling provision under Section 143(1)(a) for AY 2019-20 to make such an adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the power for the CPC to disallow Section 80P deduction for delayed filing was introduced only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the disallowance for AY 2018-19 made by the CPC was beyond its jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that following the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan, which included waivers and exemptions for past liabilities, the revenue's appeals had become infructuous. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court judgment in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that following the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan, which included waivers and exemptions for past liabilities, the revenue's appeals had become infructuous. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court judgment in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the discount on DDDs is an allowable business expenditure spread over the tenure of the debentures, relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions. The appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) by the ITO was invalid as it lacked jurisdiction, as the assessee's returned income exceeded the threshold requiring jurisdiction by the DCIT/ACIT. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the share capital and premium with documentary evidence. The identity and creditworthiness of the investor were established, and the source of funds was duly explained.
The ITAT upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the quantitative movement of stock. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not grant a fair opportunity to the assessee to respond to queries and provide documentation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the quantitative movement of stock. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in exercising the power of revision for the second time when the Assessing Officer had already conducted a detailed inquiry and complied with the previous directions. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that estimating profit at 8% without rejecting books of accounts was not justified. Considering past years' profit rates and the declared profit rate of 0.49%, the Tribunal estimated the net profit at 0.50% of the turnover.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making additions based on the alleged statements of third parties (entry operators) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. It was held that such statements, especially when recorded much later than the assessment years in question and lacking a direct nexus to the assessee's transactions, cannot be construed as incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to validly invoke Section 153A of the Act, as the prerequisite satisfaction for issuing notices was not met. The reliance on the statement of a key person was also deemed an extrapolation beyond the AO's jurisdiction, as the addition for the relevant assessment years could only be made upon valid invocation of the 4th proviso to Section 153A, which the AO failed to do. Therefore, the CIT(A) was found to have rightly deleted the additions on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search unless there is corroborating evidence. In this case, the statement recorded under section 132(4) was not supported by any corroborating material found during the search. Furthermore, the assessee had retracted the statement through sworn affidavits, claiming it was obtained under duress and coercion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with copies of the recorded statements, hindering their ability to file a rebuttal. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cited judicial precedents, particularly the co-ordinate bench's decision in the case of M/s Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., which also dealt with a retracted statement and found no investment in share capital. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and decided to delete the addition. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The decision for AY 2008-09 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition partakes the character of compensation itself and should be treated as long-term capital gains, not income from other sources. Therefore, the Principal CIT's revisionary order was not justified on this point.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was unsustainable as the loans were not proven to be out of borrowed funds, and the assessee had repaid loans during the year. It also held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to long-term capital gains, citing a High Court decision on penny stocks. However, it set aside the addition of sundry creditors, finding that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the genuineness of purchases and payments.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was not validly exercised for several issues, including loans from directors and profits from commodity trading, as the AO had conducted sufficient verification. However, for certain other issues like loans from specific companies and TDS non-deduction, the Tribunal found the AO's assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the sufficient cause presented by the assessee due to the consultant's demise and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal then proceeded to quash the assessment order due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ITRs, balance sheets, and bank statements of the investor companies, which were group concerns. The Tribunal found that the investors had sufficient net worth and that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were fully explained.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed all facts in the return and the claim was made by mistake, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that these expenses were regularly incurred in the ordinary course of business and that the assessee had provided details and evidence of TDS. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be adjudicated in the name of a non-existent entity. Therefore, the appeal filed by the amalgamating company was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasonable cause presented. It also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B, acknowledging the one-day delay was due to the auditor's illness and the assessee had a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that for two parties, M/s. Hooghly Traders and M/s. ME Enterprise, the disallowance was not warranted as they had offered the amounts to tax. However, for M/s. HT Enterprise, the assessee failed to provide sufficient details, so the disallowance was confirmed for that portion.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the grounds of appeal and decided to adjudicate based on the grounds mentioned in the annexure to Form 36. Due to the complex factual matrix and the need for further verification, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This decision followed a High Court judgment on the matter.