Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be restricted to 30% as the amendments were not retrospective in this context. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others against.
The Tribunal noted that Form 10 was filed manually with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and this involved factual verification. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to process the rectification application.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity, subject to a cost of ₹10,000/- to the Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases might have been from the grey market, the sales made from these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, the addition was restricted to an estimated profit of 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the reopening, but dismissed the challenge as the AO had tangible material. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the source of funds for the loans was not properly explained, raising doubts, but proper enquiry was lacking.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment framed without supplying the reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee is without jurisdiction. This is a violation of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for long-term capital loss on furniture and fixtures, holding it to be a capital asset. It also partly allowed the bad debts claim, deleting the disallowance for a payment made for job work.
The Tribunal held that the interest income should be treated as business income. It also vacated the disallowance of employee benefit expenses and allowed the deduction for legal and professional fees.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee and without considering a previous order by a co-ordinate bench that provided relief to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT recorded satisfaction for reopening in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind, which is not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act. Following High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the reopening to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment framed without supplying the reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee is without jurisdiction. This is a violation of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Bombay High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case. The placement fees were held to be payments for work contracts covered under Section 194C, not fees for technical services under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is the determining factor for classifying income as business income or capital gain. If some shares from a lot were accepted as STCG, the remaining shares from the same lot should also be treated similarly unless converted to stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal held that the portion of interest actually paid during the year under OTS (Rs. 1,91,19,083/-) is deductible under Section 43B. The remaining waived interest, if previously disallowed under Section 43B and credited in the P&L account, should also be allowed to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim regarding loan creditors.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the purchases were made from the grey market.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for defaults occurring before June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such levy was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be restricted to 30% as the amendments were not retrospective in this context. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others against.
The Tribunal held that the non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment is not a mere procedural lapse. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position, agreeing with coordinate benches that no interest should be taxed when optionally convertible loans are converted into equity before the due date as per the agreement. The commercial expediency and the nature of the transaction as a form of capital contribution were considered.
The Tribunal noted that the Special Bench in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO to follow this precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for not following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for re-examination based on the High Court's ratio.
The Tribunal held that the additions were estimated and not based on concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding them to be substantial. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these evidences.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the issue of adjusting refunds against interest or tax components is debatable and not a 'mistake apparent on the face of record'. Therefore, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 154.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was then dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not address the assessee's claim regarding the validity of the penalty notice. Therefore, the issue of penalty notice was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mark-to-market loss on derivative instruments, when accounted for as per accepted accounting principles and AS 30, is a deductible business expenditure. The Tribunal also allowed deduction for education cess as an allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issue of adjusting refunds against interest or tax components is debatable and not a 'mistake apparent on the face of record'. Therefore, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that unsold stock held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as notional house property income, as profit from sale is assessed as business income. The claim for Section 80G deduction was not adjudicated by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA of the Act, which deals with the determination of full value of consideration for assets other than capital assets, was applicable but was introduced later. The Tribunal also found the addition for maintenance charges to be ad-hoc and without basis.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the lack of objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition under Section 68 was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by a prior Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were premature.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine the insurance policy, while the CIT(A) did. Finding the CIT(A)'s finding not justifiable, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh verification and decision, considering the new evidence and ensuring natural justice for the revenue.
The tribunal deleted the ₹1 lakh addition as it was purely ad-hoc and not substantiated by the AO. For the second issue, the tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the sources of funds and deployment of capital.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted as the payments were covered under Section 194C, and in cases of short deduction, disallowance is not automatic. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal agreed that no disallowance is required if no exempt income was earned during the year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. The Revenue did not object to this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the rental receipts in its original return, and the revised return was filed within the prescribed time. The AO failed to provide irrefutable material to prove the revised return was filed with malafide intent to evade taxes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The loans were supported by confirmations, bank statements, financial statements, and had been repaid.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own previous decision. It was held that Section 43B is not applicable to service tax liability as it is collected on behalf of the government.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on brokerage is to be allowed in full in the impugned assessment year, as deferral of the same over a number of years for income tax purposes is not sustainable. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as a cooperative bank without an RBI license. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was unsustainable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative also conceded to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the addition should be restricted to 4% of the specific amount of bogus purchase identified by the Sales Tax Department, not the entire purchase. The rationale was to account for potential VAT avoidance.