Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since interest-free funds were sufficient for investments, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The estimation of profit on bogus purchases at 12.5% was also deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the main ground of appeal regarding the treatment of expenditure as capital. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based merely on suspicion and conjectures, without the Assessing Officer recording his own satisfaction. On merits, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as the assessee had explained the transaction as a hand loan repayment.
The Tribunal held that the revenue could not change its stance by introducing new facts not on record or pleaded before lower authorities. The revenue's claim was dismissed as it contradicted the admitted fact that the property was under construction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal found that the alternative claim under Section 80GGA(2)(bb) was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of classifying rental income to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decision. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A and the exclusion of investments were remanded to the AO for re-computation based on relevant case law. The deduction for education cess was allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter in the absence of the assessee without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had received Form-5. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The restriction of addition to the gross profit rate was considered judicious and correct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to share application money and premium. The AO had failed to properly consider these documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was an omnibus show-cause notice, betraying a non-application of mind by the AO. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the notice unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, following precedents where penalty is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee acted as an agent for the Government of Maharashtra and the income was not its own, the TDS deducted on these payments should be granted as credit to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that denying TDS credit would be unconstitutional.
The Tribunal held that properties held as stock-in-trade by a developer cannot be assessed under the head 'Income from house property' as notional rental income. Following precedents, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for donation is allowable as the institution had valid approval at the time of donation, and subsequent retrospective cancellation does not invalidate the claim. The Tribunal also held that the gift from the father was genuine and should not be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal decided multiple issues across various assessment years, often following its own previous decisions or those of coordinate benches. Key issues involved transfer pricing adjustments related to content production, trademark use, and commission payments, as well as disallowances of expenses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed decided the matter without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction by providing documentary evidence. Since the revenue failed to conduct any effective investigation to dislodge the assessee's claim, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT had no jurisdiction under Section 263 to re-verify stock details already provided and verified by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the Pr. CIT could not invoke transfer pricing provisions without issuing a proper notice and demonstrating its applicability to the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the rectification orders passed under Section 154 were time-barred as they were issued beyond the four-year period prescribed by Section 154(7) from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment orders were passed. Consequently, the rectification orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of M/s Khushal Trading Corporation were established. The selling dealer had confirmed the sales, reflected them in its accounts and returns, and there was no adverse information from the Sales-tax department.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, stating that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible when no exempt income is earned. It also confirmed that employee's EPF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A condition was added allowing restoration of the appeal if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision for levying late fees under Section 234E. Following higher court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not in their favour.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating all grounds raised by the assessee after rejecting the condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the undecided issue back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by filing evidence like a confirmation letter from his brother and the will of his father. The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct further investigation to disprove the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for land acquisition and school expenses, finding them to be revenue expenditures or incurred due to government directives. The CSR expenses were also largely allowed, particularly those incurred at the direction of government authorities.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and judicial pronouncements, decided to restrict the disallowance of non-genuine purchases to 8% for both assessment years.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and judicial pronouncements, decided to restrict the disallowance of non-genuine purchases to 8% for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the irrelevant limb of the charge, i.e., whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the purchases were supported by invoices, ledger extracts, and bank statements. The estimation of 12.5% was considered fair, and the depreciation disallowance was unjustified given the documentary evidence provided.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order based on the available material.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in restricting the addition to 7.79% of the non-genuine purchases. The decision followed a coordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the manual filing of the appeal was a technical defect and not a bar to substantial justice. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to a change in residence. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if needed.
The Tribunal held that the car belonged to the assessee's HUF, not the individual assessee, and the profit on sale was duly recorded in the HUF's books. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A in the hands of the individual assessee was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction was not ex-facie bogus and that a mere denial of a claim does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found the penalty to be unjustified.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivadh se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order was well-reasoned and supported by evidence. In the absence of new material, the Tribunal saw no reason to deviate from the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the possibility of valid reasons for non-appearance. Principles of natural justice were invoked to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) and decided to grant one more opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that investments made in the construction of a residential house prior to the sale of the original asset are eligible for deduction under Section 54, provided the construction is completed within the stipulated period after the sale. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the exemption was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the sales turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was engaged in trading, the purchases must have been genuine. Therefore, the estimation of 12.5% made by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the addition of 5% made by the CIT(A) was fair and reasonable considering the nature of the business and the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, no interference was required.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had purchase invoices and made payments through banking channels, and had also proved the disposal of goods. However, to plug revenue leakage, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.