Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting a major portion of the addition by treating it as unaccounted sales and applying a 6% Gross Profit (GP) ratio to the stated amount. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld its decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment because the assessee failed to submit supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish all evidence to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), finding reasonable cause. It restored the issues to the AO for re-verification to determine whether the assessee had purchased or sold the property, stating that no addition would be called for if no sale occurred.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D by considering only investments that yielded exempt income during the year. It was also affirmed that disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is a notional disallowance and cannot be imported while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had correctly applied the 5% safe harbor rule under the 3rd proviso to Section 50C, treating it as a declaratory and retrospective amendment. Additionally, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income, and directed the AO to verify the TDS credit claimed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on grounds of low tax effect, finding that it did not fall under any exceptions to the CBDT instruction. The Tribunal, however, allowed the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if the tax effect is later found to be higher or if the case falls within specified exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that both the lower authorities concluded that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee also failed to make proper compliance with notices. While new documents were submitted at the appeal stage, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and submit all necessary documents during the remanded proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason genuine and bonafide, and noting no objection from the D.R. In the interest of justice, and considering that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee provided an undertaking for future compliance.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if unsuccessful in the scheme.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and considering the affidavit filed by the assessee, decided to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the assessee is afforded an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 666 days in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication and for examination as to the correct year in which the money was received by the assessee.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's claims and lack of evidence, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to conduct a thorough inquiry, including obtaining bank account opening forms, KYC details, and transaction specifics, and to verify signatures, allowing the assessee an opportunity for rebuttal. The AO may also invoke Section 281B.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's failure to establish the creditworthiness of parties or genuineness of transactions, especially regarding the high share premium despite the low declared income. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing them to provide an opportunity of being heard to the AO and apply settled legal principles.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's lack of cooperation. The CIT(A) had acknowledged the assessee's challenge to the reopening and noted that the submissions required detailed examination and verification, suggesting a possible inadvertent clerical error in the income computation. However, the CIT(A) had not made a specific finding regarding the validity of the reopening. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication and to provide a finding on the reopening of the assessment, which was challenged before him. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had used government-subscribed share capital for investments and not borrowed funds, aligning with prior Tribunal decisions. Regarding the subscription fee, the deletion was sustained as the revenue could not demonstrate errors in the CIT(A)'s factual findings. For the deemed interest, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that, based on the 'real income' principle and the fact that the subsidiary was emerging from BIFR, no hypothetical interest could be levied, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. All three appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal condoned the 38-day delay in filing the appeal. Upon the assessee's request, acknowledging the incorrect appeal filing, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The Tribunal first condoned the 112-day delay in the Revenue's appeal, finding the reasons plausible. It then noted that its own co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the PCIT's Section 263 order in the assessee's case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the assessment, being a direct consequence of the quashed Section 263 order, was invalid and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This is because Section 80P(4) explicitly excludes cooperative banks, other than specific types, from the benefit of Section 80P.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within 60 days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's claims and lack of evidence, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to conduct a thorough inquiry, including obtaining bank account opening forms, KYC details, and transaction specifics, and to verify signatures, allowing the assessee an opportunity for rebuttal. The AO may also invoke Section 281B.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that despite some activities for the general public, the predominant objectives of the trust were undeniably caste-specific. Therefore, the trust did not qualify for 80G approval as per the provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 80G(5).
For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had used government-subscribed share capital for investments and not borrowed funds, aligning with prior Tribunal decisions. Regarding the subscription fee, the deletion was sustained as the revenue could not demonstrate errors in the CIT(A)'s factual findings. For the deemed interest, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that, based on the 'real income' principle and the fact that the subsidiary was emerging from BIFR, no hypothetical interest could be levied, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. All three appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This is because Section 80P(4) explicitly excludes cooperative banks, other than specific types, from the benefit of Section 80P.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to relief under Section 90/90A for taxes paid outside India. It also directed the AO to recompute book profits and business losses accurately, considering the findings on Section 14A disallowances. The interest charges under Sections 234B and 234C were deemed consequential.
The Tribunal allowed relief on grounds related to corporate guarantee fees, Section 90/90A relief, and computation of book profit and business loss, directing the AO to recompute. However, it partly allowed the ground concerning interest under Sections 234B and 234C, as it is consequential.
The Tribunal ruled that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v), which includes Section 80P deductions as an item for disallowance during processing for belated returns, came into effect only from 01.04.2021. For AY 2019-20, prior to this amendment, such a disallowance under Section 143(1) was not permissible. Section 80AC was held to apply to assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) and not to processing under Section 143(1). Consequently, the AO-CPC's adjustment was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. Recognizing that the assessment orders by both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal set aside these orders and remitted the case back to the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce documents. This re-adjudication is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- for each appeal to Legal Aid Services within sixty days.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, and that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for FTC despite the delay in filing Form-67.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction based on Section 92B of the Act and previous judgments. However, it granted partial relief by directing the calculation of corporate guarantee fee at 0.5%, aligning with its own prior ruling for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce documents. This re-adjudication is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- for each appeal to Legal Aid Services within sixty days.
For AY 2013-14, the matter was remanded to the AO to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claims, including producing directors of M/s Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. for examination and cross-examination on adverse evidence. For AY 2022-23, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper readjudication and a speaking order on the share valuation issue.
The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons. It held that the returns should not be treated as belated, as they were filed within the extended limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directives regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the Section 80P deduction claim and rejected the intimation issued under Section 143(1) to that extent.
The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons. It held that the returns should not be treated as belated, as they were filed within the extended limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directives regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the Section 80P deduction claim and rejected the intimation issued under Section 143(1) to that extent.
The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons. It held that the returns should not be treated as belated, as they were filed within the extended limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directives regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the Section 80P deduction claim and rejected the intimation issued under Section 143(1) to that extent.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and without objection from the Revenue, condoned the 100-day delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The issues were restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh readjudication, with directions to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and for the assessee to cooperate.
For AY 2013-14, the matter was remanded to the AO to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its claims, including producing directors of M/s Bhuvneshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. for examination and cross-examination on adverse evidence. For AY 2022-23, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper readjudication and a speaking order on the share valuation issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce directors or cooperate during assessment and remand proceedings. The CIT(A) accepted evidence without proper justification under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. To grant adequate opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for re-adjudication, with directions for examination of directors and share applicants.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to properly represent their case and provide necessary documents like cash books and registers before both the AO and CIT(A). To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were justified, and the assessee had sufficient cause. It held that the entire deposits, even if the exemption was not allowed, should not have been added without considering income on a commercial basis and allowing expenditure. Therefore, the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment, considering the assessee's submissions including the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
The ITAT condoned the 83-day delay in filing the appeal before it, noting that the delayed audit report (Form 10B) was available at the time of processing. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that filing the auditor's report is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the Section 11 exemption claim.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that there was no reason given to deviate from the finding that the interest u/s.234A is consequential. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue. The AO is directed to verify Form 26A and pass an appropriate order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, noting that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) may not apply if the recipient has paid taxes. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's lack of knowledge regarding the assessment and first appellate orders. It remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide on merits after granting the assessee a proper hearing, also cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the 187-day delay, finding it was due to lack of knowledge and not negligence. The case was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a fair hearing and a caution for prompt cooperation.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance at lower levels, decided to remit the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to present details, with a caution to ensure full cooperation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CIT(A) has the power to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, especially when the original order was ex-parte under Section 144. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and directed the assessee to raise all legal issues along with other issues on merits before the Assessing Officer.