Loading ITAT cases…
184 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a prior ITAT order, entitling it to Section 11 deductions. Discrepancies in accounts were explained, and corpus donations were deemed genuine. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were also found unjustified for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not producing the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted, and the assessee was granted immunity under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not producing the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted, and the assessee was granted immunity under Section 273B.
The Tribunal decided that education cess is not deductible as an expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the Supreme Court's decision. It also held that profit on sale of fixed assets is to be included in book profit under Section 115JB, citing the case of Rain Commodities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent investigations and rejected the assessee's claim based on surmises and conjectures. Relying on previous decisions where similar issues involving the same companies were decided in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the set-off of the trading losses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee cannot claim exemption without filing a return is incorrect. The AO must first determine if the assessee is a Sikkimese and if their income is exempt under Section 10(26AAA), and also re-examine the quantum of additions.
The Tribunal noted the lack of a fair opportunity for the assessee before the AO and the evolving legal position regarding LFC TDS. Considering these factors, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) by not adjudicating on merits. The assessment order was also deemed non-speaking and unsustainable due to procedural defects in reopening.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justified and condoned. It further held that the foreign tax credit is a vested right and should be allowed as per the DTAA, even if Form 67 was filed belatedly.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles by being issued on a holiday with inadequate notice. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled against the CIT(A)'s direction to change the assessee's consistent method of revenue recognition for property sales.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their legal powers by remanding the matter back to the AO for verification. The CIT(A) should have quantified the relief at their level.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its evidence, which was refused by the CIT(A) on technical grounds. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the additional evidence and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles by being issued on a holiday with inadequate notice. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled against the CIT(A)'s direction to change the assessee's consistent method of revenue recognition for property sales.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was invalid. This was because the issue of excess managerial remuneration was neither part of the reasons for reopening nor noticed by the AO during reassessment, and the revision was also barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should only be made in relation to investments that actually yield or are expected to yield exempt income. The AO's disallowance, which included investments not yielding exempt income, was deemed defective.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to gross non-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction by the AO. The AO failed to independently verify the facts before issuing notices.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 issued by an officer without jurisdiction is a jurisdictional defect and is not curable. Consequently, the assessment framed based on such a notice is bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that in the case of the assessee's wife, who was a co-owner of the same property, the CIT(A) had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains after allowing indexation. Applying the same analogy, the Tribunal held that the assessee's capital gains should also be recomputed with indexation benefits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, and it was a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also found the addition to be bad on merits as the assessee had reconciled the figures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a bonafide lapse on the part of the assessee. It then partly allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer with competent jurisdiction is a mandatory requirement for framing an assessment under Section 143(3). Since the notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, the subsequent assessment proceedings were rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition for delayed employee's EPF contribution was incorrectly treated as income from other sources and should be adjusted against business income. Regarding prior period expenses, the Tribunal found that the AO made a double addition as the assessee had already disallowed the amount, and directed the AO to examine the ledger and delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without considering the merits. Given the subsequent registration under Section 12AA and the assessee's inability to present its case properly earlier, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct an independent investigation or record a categorical finding to prove the assessee's involvement in the alleged share transaction. The Revenue failed to demonstrate the transaction with credible evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte. While the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities or the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for fresh examination in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal reviewed the records and agreed to rectify the typographical error. The correct amount is now recorded as Rs. 7,12,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely because a wrong section (Section 54F or 54GB) was mentioned in the return. The AO is directed to re-examine the claim under the correct section.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Tribunal found that the ingredients of Section 147 of the Act were not fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made if no exempt income is earned from investments. It also noted that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the amounts treated as unexplained credits were indeed payments made by the assessee, supported by documentary evidence, and thus ordered their deletion. For trading liabilities, a portion was deleted based on evidence, while a difference for one party was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench and a Madras High Court decision, held that the timeline for filing Form 10AB under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and genuine hardship. The CIT(Exemption)'s rejection on technical grounds was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are applicable to the assessee, even during its voluntary liquidation. The Tribunal reasoned that the requirement to compute book profit under Section 115JB(2) necessitates the preparation of a 'statement of profit and loss'. While the Companies Act, 2013 mandates specific accounting formats for companies carrying on business, it does not exempt companies in liquidation from the obligation to compute book profit for MAT purposes under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the ITR-6 proforma, while acknowledging entities in liquidation, does not override the express provisions of Section 115JB. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee itself had disclosed taxable income and paid tax for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24, demonstrating that it is possible to determine profits and losses and prepare a 'statement of profit and loss' leading to MAT computation. Therefore, the assessee's claim of helplessness in computing book profit due to the Companies Act provisions was rejected. Consequently, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was upheld, and the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income has been earned in the relevant assessment year. The prospective nature of the Finance Act, 2022 amendment was also considered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised powers under Section 263 because the AO had not conducted a due inquiry into the discrepancy between the Profit & Loss account purchases and VAT returns. The assessee's explanation regarding purchases from unregistered dealers was not adequately examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued to a dead person, and no proper legal heir was identified or served. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no worthwhile purpose, especially since a subsequent assessment order had been passed. The assessee has an alternative remedy to pursue the matter before the first appellate authority regarding the subsequent order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be sustained when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could only examine issues that were part of the limited scrutiny. Therefore, the revisionary order regarding unsecured loans and speculation profit was set aside, but the Pr. CIT's direction to examine Section 44AB violation was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to properly represent their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). To ensure natural justice, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessees' non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the primary addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, no penalty is leviable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of travelling expenses was ad-hoc and lacked specific defects, thus deleting the addition. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was remitted to the AO for determination.
The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. This is to consider the Supreme Court's judgment on exemption for old settlers in Sikkim and the assessee's domicile certificate, ensuring a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessees' non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund is an eligible institution for 80G deduction and the Board of Primary Education was merely an intermediary. The donation was ultimately received by the eligible fund, entitling the assessee to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the return filing date, following the Supreme Court ruling in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of share capital and premium. It found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, especially in light of the directors' non-compliance with summons.