Loading ITAT cases…
126 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on its merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not contest the additions made in the assessment order and also failed to make any compliance during penalty proceedings or before the CIT(A). Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, agreeing that the entry was bogus and lacked substantiation. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the receipt of advance or the share transaction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) as it lacked a speaking order and proper disposal of grounds. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, detailed adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10IC electronically before the due date is not necessarily fatal to claiming the benefit of Section 115BAA. The appeal is a continuation of assessment, and the CIT(A) should have considered the form.
The Tribunal held that the application for final approval cannot be rejected on the ground that activities commenced before provisional registration. The date of commencement of activity for this purpose should be counted after the grant of provisional registration.
The Tribunal held that a de novo assessment allows for all issues to be open, and the resultant income can be less than the original assessment. The second revision was deemed unsustainable as the initial de novo assessment was passed with the approval of the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the difference in stock arose from the conversion of shares held as stock-in-trade into investments, which was supported by documentary evidence. The shares were sold at cost, with no profit element.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. The PCIT failed to independently examine the case records and form an objective opinion, instead acting on the Assessing Officer's proposal and audit objections.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to applying for final registration before the expiry of the provisional registration period. The CIT (Exemption) erred in treating the application as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not in accordance with the law. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee had demonstrated that the amount received was against the sale of its investments in shares, which were duly reported in its audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit is to be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Section 199 and Rule 37BA(3)(i). However, since verification of the TDS was not possible, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law as the AO lacked proper application of mind. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee had demonstrated that the amounts received were from the sale of investments in shares, not from the issue of share capital.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was merged and subsequently demerged by orders of the Calcutta High Court. The return for AY 2015-16 was filed on October 17, 2016, after the demerger order. Following a search, a notice under Section 153A was issued, and the assessment order dated December 24, 2019, determined a loss of Rs. 23,12,876/-, which was not allowed to be carried forward due to the delay in filing the initial return. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that a return filed in response to a Section 153A notice should be considered as filed within the time prescribed for the purpose of carrying forward losses. The Tribunal relied on the principle established in the Madras High Court case of Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. vs. ITO, which held that a return filed subsequent to a modification of a scheme, reflecting the same, could not be ignored on the strength of Section 139(5) due to delay. The Tribunal further cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly allowed the appeal after considering these legal aspects. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed.
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, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to natural justice, denial of LTCG exemption, and agricultural income. It partly allowed the ground regarding interest disallowance and allowed grounds related to tax rates and interest on borrowed capital for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable for AY 2007-08. Since the assessee had suo moto offered a disallowance of Rs. 3.52 lakhs, and the AO failed to point out defects, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was unsustainable and ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee submitted documents related to the export transaction, the party remained unidentified and the transaction occurred during demonetization. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for further verification of the addition.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. The Assessing Officer is to determine the actual agricultural income and whether genuine agricultural activity was carried out, considering the assessee's affidavit and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law as the AO lacked proper application of mind. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee had demonstrated that the amounts received were from the sale of investments in shares, not from the issue of share capital.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law as the AO lacked proper application of mind. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee had demonstrated that the amounts received were from the sale of investments in shares, not from the issue of share capital.
The Tribunal held that once income is estimated after rejecting books of account, no further additions can be made on other items. The addition on account of un-reconciled purchases was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that once income is estimated after rejecting books of account, no further additions can be made on other items. The addition on account of un-reconciled purchases was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision and a jurisdictional High Court ruling on identical facts, held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The income of the institution was therefore considered exempt.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present submissions and documents. A remand report from the AO was also ordered.
The Tribunal held that the conditions in Article 16(2) of the Indo-US DTAA must be read together and applied simultaneously. Since not all conditions were met, Article 16(1) applied, making the income taxable in the USA, not India.