Loading ITAT cases…
138 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the PF and ESI payments. If payments were made within the due dates, they are to be allowed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were purely legal. It found that the reasons recorded for reassessment and the approval granted were mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the entire reassessment process.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed even if deposited before the due date of filing the return, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The deposit must be made on or before the due date specified in the relevant enactments.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claims regarding deductions under Section 80C and 80TTA, and the taxability of the cooking gas subsidy.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not appreciated the facts correctly regarding foreign transactions and had not examined the sale of the motor vehicle with reference to supporting documents. Therefore, both issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings, the penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied for a venial technical breach without any mala fide intention. The penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s direction to apply a 5% GP rate to be too lenient. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 12.5% GP rate instead, modifying the lower appellate authority's order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including demand drafts and cheques, to prove the payment of these expenses. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It was held that Section 68 applies only when there is actual receipt of money, and in this case, the transactions were mere book entries without any cash flow. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the two parties from whom funds were actually received were established.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claims regarding deductions under Section 80C and 80TTA, and the taxability of the cooking gas subsidy.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions, and non-compliance with summons under Section 131 was not a sole basis for addition.
The Tribunal held that the club expenses were incurred primarily for business purposes and for promoting the company's interests. Therefore, they are allowable under Section 37 of the Act, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that the AO made a high-pitch assessment without contrary material and the CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the income by applying Section 44AD at 8% on the total gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that there was no justifiable reason for the reduced deduction and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The AO was directed to allow the full claim of Rs. 49,97,227 as long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes regarding CCS Technology Ltd. and KPIT Global Solutions Ltd., remanding the issue for further verification of financial data. The appeal concerning Thirdware Solutions Ltd. was dismissed as the Tribunal found its predominant activity to be software development services.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of share capital and premium as unexplained cash credit solely based on the non-appearance of share applicants, despite other evidence supporting identity, capacity, and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for not accepting the assessee's suo moto disallowance and did not compute the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that generation of power is considered manufacturing or production of an article or thing, entitling the assessee to additional depreciation. It also found that the modifications constituted substantial expansion and new plant/machinery, thus qualifying for additional depreciation.
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The amount mentioned in paragraph 8 was rectified from Rs. 22,95,220/- to Rs. 25,92,220/-.
The Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are to be treated as withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that the AO also failed to consider the evidence. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking proper examination of documents. Due to insufficient details provided by the assessee regarding the adjustment method and satisfaction of Section 115BAA conditions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, invoking Section 68 of the Act was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on presumptions without corroborative material, as the seized document was unsigned and considered a 'dumb document'. Furthermore, the lack of cross-examination of Gopal Agarwal rendered the addition bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was correct, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable as a deduction even if deposited before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim for exemption of dividend income and to rectify the deduction made in computing business income, as these were genuine claims not considered by the CPC.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable as the agreement date (allotment letter) and registration date were different, and consideration was paid via banking channels before registration. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the stamp duty value as of the allotment date.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal held that the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction by denying the deduction under section 80P via a prima facie adjustment, as this power was granted to the CPC only from April 1, 2021. Even if the due date was September 30, 2019, the return was filed within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B is applicable only if a deduction has been claimed in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not claim these taxes as a deduction, Section 43B cannot be invoked. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO was duty-bound to refer the issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) before making the addition. Since this was not done, the addition cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal, considering the audited accounts and employee details, sustained a disallowance of 5% of the salary expenditure, providing partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that dividend and interest income earned by the educational institution do not constitute part of the annual receipts for the purpose of determining eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the entire income of the educational institution is exempt from tax.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B is applicable only if a deduction has been claimed in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not claim these taxes as a deduction, Section 43B cannot be invoked. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked for any sum credited in the books, not just cash/bank transactions. The CIT(A)'s deletion solely on the absence of cash/bank transactions was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the ex parte orders were passed without proper verification of records, especially after the migration to the faceless regime. The Tribunal decided to examine the issues on merits, setting aside the ex parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by filing sufficient details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The non-appearance of directors alone was not sufficient to make an addition, especially since the proviso to Section 68 requiring 'source of source' was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the cross-objection and restored the issue to the AO to examine the claim of brought forward losses and depreciation for set-off against the increased income due to the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had erred in passing ex-parte orders without dealing with the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders that dismissed the appeals. Crucially, the CIT(A) had not disposed of the cases on their merits and had issued non-speaking orders. This was found to be impermissible under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) must be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. Therefore, in the interest of fair play and justice, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the ex parte orders were passed without proper verification of records, especially after the migration to the faceless regime. The Tribunal decided to examine the issues on merits, setting aside the ex parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and investigate the matter further despite the assessee furnishing all relevant documents. The mere non-production of investors before the AO was not sufficient reason to make the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposits of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is confirmed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is only available if the amounts are deposited on or before the due date.
The Tribunal admitted the new legal grounds as they could be raised for the first time. Due to the need to examine facts and submissions related to reopening, these grounds, along with the ground on business loss, were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.