Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal held that the unexplained investments, being an application of income rather than earning of income, could not be taxed in India under Article 22(1) of the India-UAE DTAA as the assessee was a UAE resident and had no economic activity in India. The Tribunal also noted the tentative nature of the interest income finding.
The Tribunal found that the elaborate documentary evidence submitted by the assessee required thorough verification by the AO. Considering the principle of natural justice and the material bearing of the documents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the rectification application was maintainable as there was a mistake in calculating interest on the loan to the subsidiary. It also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS in the year the income was offered to tax, irrespective of the TDS deposit year.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unsustainable. It found that the AO's view in allowing depreciation and interest was plausible, as the cars were used for business, owned by the assessee, and depreciation was allowed on opening WDV. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities proceeded on incorrect facts, with the AO wrongly passing a Section 154 order instead of an Order Giving Effect to the CIT(A)'s previous direction. The issue of entitlement to interest remained unadjudicated.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable despite best efforts. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment as there was no tangible material, and it was based on a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment order was liable to be struck down.
The Tribunal held that the DCF method is a recognized method under law and the AO cannot reject a validly adopted method without concrete material. The valuation done by a qualified Chartered Accountant was not shown to be perverse, and the AO's rejection was based on assumptions.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, late payment of employee contributions, if made before the return filing due date, should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee had paid the purchase cost through cheque via a stock exchange, and there was no evidence of money returning or commission paid.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the settlement under the VVS Scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that lease rent for furniture was allowable as it was based on agreements and not disturbed in prior years. Lease rent for machinery was also allowed as it was a business expenditure, irrespective of immediate revenue generation. Professional fees paid to Inventa Research were allowed based on prior year's tribunal decision. However, professional fees paid to directors were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO had not pointed out any defects in the evidence and relied solely on third-party investigation reports without conducting independent inquiries. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view by taxing the bogus purchases at 12.5% based on High Court decisions. Therefore, the revisionary order was not correct, and the assessment order was not erroneous.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by disposing of the appeals ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all necessary evidence for the share transactions, and the AO's reliance solely on an investigation wing report was insufficient to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal also noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously held that gains from the same script were not bogus.
The Tribunal held that the contribution to the superannuation fund, based on actuarial valuation to cover a shortfall, is an admissible expenditure. However, the provision for leave encashment, not paid within the due date, is not allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained Form-5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's representative agreed to this. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on an estimated basis and the assessee's conduct was not contumacious. Therefore, the penalty could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the sale was conditional and not complete as possession had not been handed over and full payment was not received. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in the current year, and depreciation was allowable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the date of purchase is the date of the allotment letter, not the date of the registered agreement. The provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not applicable to the transaction as it was executed prior to the amendment making it applicable to inadequate consideration.
The tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the VVS Scheme resolution was not in their favor.
The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income by the Commissioner (Appeals) without providing an opportunity of hearing violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The issue of disallowance of annual maintenance charges also required fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the share transactions, including purchase and sale proofs, contract notes, and banking channel payments. It found that the lower authorities' decision was based on an investigation report without disproving the assessee's evidence, distinguishing the case from precedents where transactions were found to be bogus.
The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeals 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 appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and financial statements of the lenders/investors, proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the basis for addition, a retracted statement, was unreliable.
The Tribunal held that the severance pay received by the assessee due to the employer closing down its business operations in India is in the nature of a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 17(3)(i) of the Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to opting for the settlement scheme. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed as no confirmation of tax payment was filed by the revenue.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to inquire into the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction by making his own valuation and not considering the assessee's submissions and valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute actual rent with notional rent based on interest-free security deposits, especially when municipal valuation is lower and no concrete evidence of concealed income was presented. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The disallowance of interest expenditure was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to prove it was for business purposes.
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 the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance for delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is not permissible if deposited before the return filing date. It also held that outstanding sundry creditors do not automatically amount to cessation of liability under Section 41(1) if the liability continues in the books and no benefit has been received.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that the addition made on the basis of a retracted statement recorded during a survey, especially when there was no other evidence, should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his duty by not conducting independent inquiries and solely relying on information from a search action against a third party. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, and the AO should have made efforts to verify the genuineness of the loan.
The Tribunal held that as per Proviso to Section 13(1)(d)(iia), the assessee had one year from the end of the financial year of acquisition to invest in prescribed modes. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, there was no violation of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed by considering only those investments that yielded exempt income during the year. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, and the cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal, following the Madras High Court's precedent, treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that taxing the same amount twice was incorrect. It also agreed that a 100% disallowance was not sustainable when sales were not doubted, and an estimation of profit was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked tangible material. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal agreed that disallowance under Section 14A should only be on investments yielding exempt income and that no disallowance can be made under Section 115JB. However, the AO was directed to factually verify the correctness of the assessee's computation of disallowance.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case, restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to ascertain details of assets given on rent and allow the claim under Section 24(a) if substantiated.
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 the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the ITAT treated the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to their opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal disposed 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 the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.