Loading ITAT cases…
104 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the illness and subsequent death of their tax advocate during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness, as supported by an affidavit and medical certificate. Both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness, as supported by an affidavit and medical certificate. Both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to meet investments, it is presumed that own funds were used. Furthermore, if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not barred by limitation due to COVID-19 extensions. However, on merits, it found that the assessee had provided all details in the original return and the transactions were through banking channels. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was amalgamated and the appeal was filed by the amalgamated entity. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a fresh appeal in the name of the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal held that Performance Related Pay is essentially a bonus or commission to employees. As per Section 36(1)(ii) read with Section 43B(c) of the Income Tax Act, such payments are only deductible upon actual payment, not merely when a provision is created.
The Tribunal held that the turnover, whether considered as declared by the assessee or as per the National Spot Exchange Limited's sales figure, was less than Rs. 1 Crore. Therefore, the requirement for audit under Section 44AB was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was taxable as business income. However, it found that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified based on the facts presented.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked adjudication on merits. Considering the assessee's plea for another opportunity and the fact that the company was not a shell company, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing the need for fairness, justice, and adherence to natural justice principles. This was due to the assessee's claim of unawareness of notices and the CIT(A)'s order being a mere replica of the AO's findings.
The Tribunal restored the disallowances under Section 80C and 80D to the AO for re-examination of evidence. Interest income was confirmed subject to admissible deduction under Section 80TTA, and a tax credit claim was dismissed.
The Tribunal quashed the second revisionary order passed under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer had conducted a complete inquiry in the prior proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment order and the addition were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the disallowances under Section 80C and 80D to the AO for re-examination of evidence. Interest income was confirmed subject to admissible deduction under Section 80TTA, and a tax credit claim was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that deductions under Section 80IC, allowed for total income under normal provisions, cannot be deducted while computing book profit under Section 115JB. This decision followed precedents from various High Courts and Tribunals.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities made additions in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind or independent inquiry. The assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documents for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proof regarding the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants and the genuineness of transactions. The Revenue failed to point out any distinct facts warranting interference.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based solely on the promoter's statement without allowing cross-examination. Furthermore, the alleged extra payment was small and should have been divided among the three co-purchasers.
The Tribunal held that derivative transactions are distinct from share trading and the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act, which deals with speculation in shares, is not applicable. However, the Tribunal found that debentures issued by related companies to the assessee constituted a loan or advance, making the deemed dividend addition under Section 2(22)(e) justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had misconstrued the purpose of the weighbridge, which was an integral part of the highway/toll road project. The weighbridge, along with its connecting road, was constructed to manage heavy vehicle movement and collect toll charges, thus forming part of the overall highway infrastructure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants, and the business decision to invest, even at a premium, was within the company's prerogative.
The Tribunal held that the addition for suppressed sales was not justified as the transactions occurred in prior years and income was offered in the year of receipt. It also held that the addition for unexplained investment was not sustainable as the transaction was disclosed and paid through banking channels, and no provision existed for such an addition in AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the addition was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party informant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments regarding reliance on third-party information without verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party informant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments regarding reliance on third-party information without verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party informant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments regarding reliance on third-party information without verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party informant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments regarding reliance on third-party information without verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings and the order passed under Section 263 were invalid because they were initiated against a non-existent entity and the original assessment order was void ab initio. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by adding the suo motu disallowed amount to the disallowance calculated under Rule 8D(2). The disallowance calculated by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D(2) should be the final disallowance, as it considers all relevant factors.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim credit for TDS deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it with the government. The liability arising from non-deposit cannot be fastened on the deductee.
The Tribunal held that the addition was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account and failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party informant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court judgments regarding reliance on third-party information without verification and opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee genuinely effected the purchase and sale of shares and claimed LTCG as exempt. The AO wrongly computed the business income.
The Tribunal held that as per the scheme of amalgamation, all assets, liabilities, and tax credits, including advance tax and TDS, of the amalgamating company should be accounted for by the amalgamated company post the effective date. The denial of credit was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 153C read with section 153A was bad in law. The primary requirement of initiating proceedings under section 153C, which is the satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person indicating that material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search and had a bearing on the assessee's total income, was not complied with. The department failed to produce any such satisfaction note. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the department (pages 1-10) did not contain any reference to the assessee, nor did they constitute incriminating material specific to the addition made. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made based on the AO's observations during the assessment proceedings rather than any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated, the assessment order was not in accordance with the provisions of section 153C read with section 153A and did not meet the findings of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Singhad Technical Education Society and the jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., which held that in unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, rendering other grounds academic. The ratio decidendi is that for assessments under section 153C in unabated years, the satisfaction of the AO of the searched person regarding incriminating material belonging to the assessee is a mandatory prerequisite, and in its absence, no addition can be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The mere non-production of directors for examination by the AO, when other documentary evidence was furnished, could not be the sole basis for making the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not conducting further inquiries and relying solely on the non-appearance of directors. The assessee had provided all necessary documents to establish identity and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that the AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had disclosed the capital gain in its return.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Totgars case was distinguished as it dealt with different facts.
The Tribunal held that the rental income received from RIL for exclusive use of office space for its business activities did not have a nexus with the club's activities. Therefore, the principle of mutuality did not apply, and the income was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's understanding of Section 68 was incorrect as the investments were recorded in the books. Similarly, the expenses were also accounted for and audited. Therefore, the additions were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) incorrectly appreciated the assessee's income and the subscriber's creditworthiness. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary evidence, and the non-compliance with summons was not a sufficient ground for addition.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and accepted the valuation furnished by the assessee, the PCIT cannot revise the order under Section 263. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the rental income received from RIL for exclusive use of office space for its business activities did not have a nexus with the club's activities. Therefore, the principle of mutuality did not apply, and the income was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the rental income received from RIL for exclusive use of office space for its business activities did not have a nexus with the club's activities. Therefore, the principle of mutuality did not apply, and the income was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2) as the returned income was below the threshold for an ACIT. Consequently, the assessment framed was invalid.
The Tribunal deleted ad-hoc disallowances for conveyance, travelling, and office maintenance expenses. It partly allowed the disallowance for guest entertainment expenses, sustaining 20% of the amount. The addition for unexplained opening capital was deleted due to double addition, and the addition for unexplained cash deposit was reduced by considering available cash and past savings.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits was part of the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P for this interest income.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's wife's case was remanded to the AO for recomputation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the long-term capital gain for the assessee on similar lines.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee already had a subsisting valid registration under Section 12A, the second application was not maintainable and infructuous. Therefore, the dismissal of the second application by the CIT(Exemption) would not affect the existing registration.
The Tribunal held that the revenue had correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in the PAN of the assessee in the original order. The error was in mentioning the PAN as AAECP4824P instead of the correct PAN, AAECP4824E. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a corrigendum be issued to modify the order accordingly. The operative direction is to correct the impugned order to reflect the correct PAN as 'AAECP4824E'. No other issues were decided.