Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 9 of 14
The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Section 292BB, which could have cured such a defect, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific charge for penalty initiation, as concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars carry different connotations. Since the AO was unclear, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied was subsequently deleted by the ITAT, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as it was a case of failure to substantiate an expenditure, not a case where falsity or untruth was established. The addition was only on the profit element, and sales corresponding to the purchases were accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Section 14A additions in 153A proceedings when no incriminating material was found. It also ruled that forfeited share warrants were capital receipts. For other issues, the Tribunal either dismissed the appeals, partly allowed them, or remanded them for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. The assessee argued that the reopening was bad in law and purchases were genuine, while the revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not confirming the full addition for bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made on investments held as stock-in-trade, even if they yield exempt income. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It noted that the assessee had provided reconciliation of purchases and sales, and payments were made through account payee cheques.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issue was covered by judicial pronouncements and the assessee's own case. Investments in sister concerns should be excluded from average investment for Section 14A disallowance calculations.
The Tribunal held that the interest-bearing loan was taken in the current year, while interest-free loans were advanced in prior years, thus no nexus existed. It also held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, holding that it raised a pure point of law concerning the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction and did not require fresh investigation of facts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Bombay High Court's ruling that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against subsequent income and treated as application of income for charitable purposes. The assessee's appeal regarding unadjudicated depreciation and deficits was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation was an incorrect claim in law, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The short-term capital gain omission was an inadvertent error, and the difference in Form 26AS was due to unreconcilable clerical shortage, not deliberate omission. Therefore, no penalty was exigible.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the different units of machinery constituted independent units eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The Tribunal noted that the previous ITAT orders in the assessee's favor had not been altered by any higher authority.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the principal amount of the earlier refund should be excluded when calculating interest under Section 244A. This was in line with previous orders from the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the year under consideration, following the Bombay High Court's judgment. It also held that head office expenses related to investment activities for control over subsidiary companies were not disallowable under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Bombay High Court's ruling that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against subsequent income and treated as application of income for charitable purposes. The assessee's appeal regarding unadjudicated depreciation and deficits was remanded.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of funds for the property investments. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the provisions of Section 68 and Section 69 were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the carry forward of the deficit, as it followed the binding judgment of the Bombay High Court. The pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court by the department was considered of no consequence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the carry forward of deficit. The decision was based on binding judgments of the Bombay High Court, which had consistently allowed such claims for charitable trusts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned during the relevant previous year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 because the assessee had offered income on a gross basis and claimed no expenditure. This factual position was apparent from the record, and the CIT(A) had inadvertently failed to consider it in the original appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including party-wise details and ledger extracts, to support the write-off of advances. It further stated that once advances made in the regular course of business are written off in the books, it is not necessary to separately prove their irrecoverability.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases to the assessee's income, following High Court judgments. It was held that the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added, even if the suppliers did not appear before the authorities.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) were crucial and went to the root of the matter. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after admitting and verifying these additional evidences.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be disallowed as only the profit element is taxable. A reasonable disallowance of 12.5% of the disputed purchases was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice and fill the revenue leakage gap.
The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's declared profit margin and the nature of the business.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal due to lack of submissions and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the mere collection of charges for coaching camps, which are ancillary to the main charitable object of promoting sports, does not render the activities commercial. The surplus generated does not taint the receipts as arising from business or commerce.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance on diminution in the value of shares as the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered the available facts and provided partial relief.
The Tribunal held that the Mark to Market loss claimed by the assessee on derivative transactions was allowable, as it was covered by previous ITAT decisions. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that it was not applicable to investments held as stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when exempt income is actually received or accrued.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had considered various judicial pronouncements and relevant factors like VAT rate and profit margins to restrict the addition to 6%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had judiciously considered the facts and judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal agreed that certain transactions were to be assessed in AY 2012-13, while others were correctly assessed in the year under consideration and eligible for Section 54 exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of reopening was identical to a previous case for AY 2009-10, where the matter was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal followed the same precedent.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision, dismissing the ground related to reassessment proceedings but partly allowing the ground regarding disallowance of purchases. Interest under Section 234D was considered consequential.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) who had allowed partial relief by directing the deduction of profit already declared by the assessee on these purchases from the estimated addition.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the actual VAT paid by the assessee. The addition should be reduced by the amount of VAT actually paid, meaning the final addition would be 12.5% of bogus purchases minus the VAT paid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the claim was made bonafidely and disclosed in the return.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct a deep investigation into the expenses attributable to earning exempt income. While upholding the principle of disallowance, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance amount, considering the assessee's own case in preceding years and the need for justice.
The Tribunal held that interest on NRE/FCNR deposits is exempt under Section 10(4)(ii). Issues regarding unexplained bank deposits were restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry. Deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A were directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed verification of sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments and that disallowance should not exceed exempt income.
The tribunal held that re-opening the assessment after four years, based on materials already available during the original assessment, constituted a 'change of opinion' and was impermissible. The conditions for re-opening after four years, requiring failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, were not met.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of bogus purchases could not be added as the AO had not rejected the books of account and accepted the sales. Following High Court judgments, the addition was modified to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.