Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the delay in payment, when the due date falls on a Sunday or holiday, should be condoned. The payment made on the next working day is considered bona fide.
The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner was justified in examining the nature of the Rs. 40 Lakh addition (sustained by the CIT(A)), the Rs. 27,61,080/- addition deleted by the CIT(A) should not have been revisited under Section 263. The AO was directed to examine the nature of the Rs. 40 Lakh addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were due to inadvertent mistakes by the auditor. The advertisement expenses were not paid to a political party, and the provident fund was paid within the due date.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee does not wish to pursue the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the ledger of the related party, to demonstrate that the amount was received in the year under consideration and was duly accounted for. The addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on judicial pronouncements. The judgment then delves into the interpretation and application of Section 68 concerning unexplained credits, particularly share capital and share premium.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of common expenses made by the AO, finding that the O&M agreements were comprehensive and the assessee had already offered a portion of common expenses. The Tribunal also directed the AO to incorporate the assessee's suo moto offer and the correct claim amount for Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer in Kolkata lacked territorial jurisdiction after the company shifted its registered office. Furthermore, the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the common shareholder (KSWPL) might be liable for deemed dividend, the assessee company (ASMSPL) receiving the loan is not. The deeming fiction of Section 2(22)(e) cannot be extended to the recipient concern when the beneficial shareholder is distinct.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately completed under Section 153A/143(3) after the assessee provided details, the earlier non-compliance should be ignored. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the salary income earned in the USA is taxable in the USA as per Article 16(1) of the India-USA DTAA, as the conditions for exception under Article 16(2) were not simultaneously met. The dividend income ground was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's failure to furnish any evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money led to this decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal held that the delays in remittance were due to exceptional circumstances, including a gazetted holiday and the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 14,03,424/-, deleting Rs. 6,96,306/- from the addition.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, remitting the matter back to the AO. This is to allow the assessee to produce the purchase bills, which are now available, for verification against the books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed before the wrong bench due to the location of the Assessing Officer. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the jurisdiction lies with the bench where the AO is located.
The tribunal found it necessary to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to decide the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the successor company, Pushpsri Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were incomplete and mechanically recorded, failing to consider all relevant financial aspects of the investor. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of disallowing the set-off of house property loss against capital gains under section 143(1) was invalid as it was done without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by the first proviso to section 143(1).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the NCLT order extinguished all government liabilities. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the outstanding liabilities against the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of investment in unlisted securities to the AO for limited verification to determine if the investment was made in the previous year 2012-13. If made in an earlier year, the addition would be deleted as Section 69C would not apply.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified, considering the evidence submitted by the assessee, including purchase bills, VAT registration, and confirmations from parties. The Tribunal noted that the lack of verification was not solely the assessee's fault and relied on its own prior order in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and the assessment framed were bad in law as the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's objections. The additions made were ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding mistakes in the tax audit report. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench orders regarding the electricity tariff. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend-yielding investments.
The Tribunal held that an HUF is an independent taxable entity and there was no evidence that the Karta's request to pay commission to HUFs indicated a lack of services rendered. The disallowance of commission was unjustified as the expenditure was for services availed.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AF exempts certain retail traders from maintaining books of accounts. Since the total stock did not exceed the prescribed limit and the AO's calculations were flawed, the addition made by the revenue authorities was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's rejection was incorrect as there is no bar on filing the application for final registration before the expiry of the provisional registration period. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to adhere to the prescribed Standard Operating Procedure for recording reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind, making the notice under Section 148 bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed a valid UK tax residency certificate for the relevant period and had offered the income to tax in the UK. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to DTAA benefits, and the addition made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the issue of gratuity payment to the CIT(A) for verification. It held that the late filing of Form 67 was a procedural irregularity and directed the AO to allow the foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order after considering their submissions.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee might not be an exempted entity, it was entitled to claim expenses against its gross receipts. The CIT(A) failed to consider the audited accounts showing expenses exceeding receipts.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities made additions based on conjectures and surmises without examining the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had accounted for the cash deposits and supported their claims with a cash flow statement and sales invoices.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench orders regarding the electricity tariff. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend-yielding investments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. They found that the CIT(A) had inadvertently dismissed the appeal against the assessment order while intending to dispose of the penalty appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of transactions. The AO failed to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had granted a substantial opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio as the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, all additions made were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had the necessary approvals for the deduction under Section 35(2AB) and that similar deductions were allowed in preceding and succeeding years. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the recognition certificate, which the assessee had now traced. The claim for exemption should be allowed if admissible after such examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment system. It further held that the reopening notice issued by an ITO without territorial jurisdiction vitiated the entire assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal restored the issue of PF/ESI deposit to the AO for verification of the deposit dates. For the Section 80JJAA deduction, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench ruling and held that such disallowance cannot be made under Section 143(1) for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order considering the submissions. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a proper disposal.
The Tribunal held that the CPC failed to provide the mandatory prior intimation to the assessee before making adjustments under section 143(1)(a). Therefore, the intimation issued was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without adjudicating the issues on merit, violating the assessee's statutory right to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision on the issue of disallowance for delayed payment of employees' contributions to PF & ESI is declaratory and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified, and the issue was not debatable at the time of processing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's submission that it did not receive proper communication from the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision on the issue of disallowance for delayed payment of employees' contributions to PF & ESI is declaratory and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified, and the issue was not debatable at the time of processing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by quashing the assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The primary reasoning was based on the additional ground raised by the assessee, which was squarely covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed/concluded assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made with respect to incriminating material found during the search at the assessee's premises. Since the assessment year 2013-14 was a completed assessment (no notice under Section 143(2) was issued), and the AO did not refer to any incriminating material found from the assessee's premises linked to the impugned additions, the assessment proceedings were held to be bad in law. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that documents found during a survey at another assessee's premises could be used, citing the decision in Shri Krishna Kumar Singhania, where it was held bad in law to make additions in the hands of a searched person based on documents impounded from another searched person. The Tribunal found the assessee's case stronger as the documents were found during a survey (not search) at a different assessee not directly connected. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the alleged additions were deleted. The remaining grounds on merits were rendered infructuous.