Loading ITAT cases…
329 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was incorrect. It reasoned that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, which were more than the interest-free or low-interest loans advanced, thus justifying the use of interest-bearing funds for such advances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a previous ruling in a similar case (Nitin B. Gajipara). The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was bad in law due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search for a non-abated assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the assessee's intention to use the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.
The Tribunal held that the depreciation and other expenses were related to the assessee's business premises and not the properties from which rental income was earned. Therefore, the disallowance was based on a misconception of facts.
The Tribunal held that once the sales turnover is accepted, the entire bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the suppressed profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in a non-abated assessment under Section 153A, fresh claims cannot be allowed if not made in the return or through a revised return. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in regular assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's submission regarding the incorrect PAN used by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based merely on suspicion without any positive evidence. The assessee had made the donation through banking channels and provided a receipt.
The Tribunal found that the estimation of suppressed profit margin at 12.5% was on the higher side and reduced it to 6%. For AY 2011-12, two grounds of appeal that were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 was served beyond the prescribed period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the AO had invalidly assumed jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that it was not clear if the notices issued by the CIT(A) were duly served on the assessee. An ex-parte order without proper service of notice violates the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of a previous application should not solely be the basis for rejecting the current one. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication after considering the assessee's activities in relation to its main objects.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases, the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed if the sales turnover declared by the assessee was accepted. Only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be taxed.
The Tribunal held that once the loan transaction is accepted as genuine by the Revenue, disallowing interest expenditure on such loan in a subsequent assessment year is not justified. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue's failure to provide information regarding appeals filed for earlier years.
The Tribunal found that the issue was a matter of reconciliation and that there was no remission or cessation of liabilities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-appreciation of facts, with a direction for the assessee to reconcile the outstanding amounts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty deletion was justified as the additions were based on estimation, and there was no evidence of income concealment. Additionally, the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The tribunal held that the revenue's appeals have become infructuous due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that compensation paid to vacate tenants should be adjusted against tenancy receipts, and the nature of premium for tenancy rights needs to be examined in light of a High Court decision. The issue of certain expenses was remanded for factual verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that in a non-abated assessment under Section 153A, fresh claims cannot be allowed if not made in the return or through a revised return. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in regular assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Revenue not objecting to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the revisionary proceedings and the consequent revisionary order under Section 263. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not examine the issue of debit balances and failed to consider the additional evidence. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the incentive was paid for services rendered and not as a return on investment. Since similar payments were not made to other shareholders and the payment was for services, it did not fall under the ambit of Section 36(1)(ii).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing education cess as an allowable expenditure based on CBDT circulars and High Court decisions. It also confirmed that the fertilizer subsidy was capital in nature and not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The Assessing Officer could have proceeded against the subscribers if he believed they were bogus.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal, in view of the above, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). On the first issue, regarding the addition of interest, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, respectfully following the order of the predecessor CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 and the ITAT's order for the same year. The ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 had held that the interest was not received and hence not taxable for that year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. On the second issue, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that co-operative societies are entitled to deduction on interest and dividend earned from investments with co-operative banks, citing various ITAT decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 had allowed the deduction. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction. On the third issue for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was beyond its scope, as it was not an arithmetical error or an incorrect claim apparent from the return. The Tribunal also noted that the due date for filing the return was extended by the CBDT, making the assessee eligible for the deduction. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). On the first issue, regarding the addition of interest, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, respectfully following the order of the predecessor CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 and the ITAT's order for the same year. The ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 had held that the interest was not received and hence not taxable for that year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. On the second issue, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that co-operative societies are entitled to deduction on interest and dividend earned from investments with co-operative banks, citing various ITAT decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 had allowed the deduction. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction. On the third issue for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was beyond its scope, as it was not an arithmetical error or an incorrect claim apparent from the return. The Tribunal also noted that the due date for filing the return was extended by the CBDT, making the assessee eligible for the deduction. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search in an unabated assessment. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal found that additions based solely on bank credits were not the correct method of assessment, especially when books were unavailable due to seizure. The double taxation of funds was also noted, and the CIT(A) had failed to address these issues.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade are part of trading operations, and any income derived therefrom is business income, not income from house property. Therefore, notional rental value on such inventories cannot be added under the head Income from House Property.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), agreeing that the issue was already settled before the ITSC and sustaining the addition would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the rights in the three flats, acquired due to an arbitration award, represented a continuation of the assessee's investment in the firm, albeit in a different form. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not legally or factually sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the addition leading to the penalty was made purely on an estimated basis due to doubts about the purchases, it cannot be concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that gifts were substantiated by donor's affidavit and bank statements, low household drawings were supported by the assessee's capital balance and past drawings, and unsecured loans were duly supported by confirmations, bank statements, and lender's income declarations. Consequently, consequential interest additions were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2012, was not applicable to a banking company. Therefore, the rectification order based on this section was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases, representing the profit element. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the purchases, even if not from the declared source, and that disallowing the entire amount was not justified.
The Tribunal held that passing a final assessment order without a draft assessment order, when conditions of Section 144C(1) are met, violates statutory mandate and denies the assessee statutory remedies. Therefore, the assessment order is invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Assessing Officer had tangible material to form a belief of income escapement. It also ruled that Section 153A did not bar reopening for assessment years outside its scope, provided conditions were met.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative could not provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the gifts from the brothers were from agriculturists and within the exemption limit, and the gift from the mother-in-law was supported by her substantial capital balance. The addition on account of sundry creditors was also deleted as the assessee's income was computed on a presumptive basis.
The Tribunal held that gifts from the mother-in-law and brother were substantiated and deleted the additions. It also allowed the claims for house property loss and Section 80C deduction, and deleted the addition for low household drawings and sundry creditors.
The Tribunal held that estimated additions, based on doubts about the source of purchases, cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified to the extent of the estimated addition.
The Tribunal held that the gifts were supported by the donor's substantial capital balance and that the unsecured loan was duly substantiated with confirmation and affidavit. The low household drawings were also deemed unsustainable in light of the assessee's past drawing patterns.
The Tribunal held that the STCG should be computed using the FIFO method, as consistently followed by the assessee, and not the LIFO method used by the AO. The ICICI Bank statement contained an error regarding bonus shares.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of technical support services needed to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of arm's length price. The issue of set-off for brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business losses was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which the proceedings were initiated. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative also conceded to the withdrawal.