Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 2 of 7
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and considering the supporting documents submitted by the assessee. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo decision.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis of the penalty, were deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that advances paid to HRG for research assignments cannot be considered as loans to related parties for denying Section 11 benefits. However, the issue of mutuality and dealings with non-members was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot simultaneously treat the assessee as an accommodation entry provider and a genuine trading concern. Therefore, the addition for low gross profit rate, which assumes genuine trading, was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Rule 8D(2) are applicable from 02/06/2016 and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the disallowance as per the pre-amended Rule.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view on allowing deduction for interest from co-operative banks was a plausible view, thus the PCIT lacked jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing sufficient documentation regarding the loan creditors. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with relied-upon materials and provide cross-examination opportunities rendered the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal lacked cogency and could not be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was time-barred regarding the arbitration award issue. It also found that the AO had made due enquiries and taken a plausible view on both issues, thus the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, following jurisdictional High Court decisions which stated that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective. The payments made before the due date of filing the return were considered eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, inserting Explanation 2, has prospective application. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, inserting Explanation 2, has prospective application. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution, if made before the return filing due date, is allowable.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made for profit on alleged bogus purchases. Based on precedents, it was concluded that such estimations do not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing sufficient documentation regarding the loan creditors. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with relied-upon materials and provide cross-examination opportunities rendered the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO were not sustainable as no specific irregularities were pointed out. The Tribunal found no justification for the disallowances and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be excluded based on the Supreme Court's order regarding COVID-19 related limitations. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 14A, short-term capital gains, bad debts, and club entrance fees, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. The assessee's ground regarding depreciation on leased premises was not pressed. The ground concerning depreciation on lease assets was restored to the AO for adjudication based on prior year's orders.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. Following previous judgments, it was decided that employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on incorrect facts regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that advances made in the normal course of business, which became irrecoverable and were written off, constitute a trading loss allowable under Section 28 of the Act. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) were not applicable in this case.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court's decision in Totagars Sales Society was distinguished as it pertained to Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the addition of share premium as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal reasoned that since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance of purchases was not justified, and the CIT(A)'s approach met the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing sufficient documentation regarding the loan creditors. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with relied-upon materials and provide cross-examination opportunities rendered the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that advances paid to HRG for research assignments cannot be considered as loans to related parties for denying Section 11 benefits. However, the issue of mutuality and dealings with non-members was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption for the interest income. The assessee-trust was not approved in the relevant assessment year, and therefore, the exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) was rightly denied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing sufficient documentation regarding the loan creditors. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with relied-upon materials and provide cross-examination opportunities rendered the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the appeals electronically and provided evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's contentions. Citing jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court judgments, it was held that if interest-free funds exceed investments, the presumption is that investments were made from such funds.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as new information was received. It also upheld the disallowance of purchases, noting the assessee's inability to prove genuineness and his offer for a 12.5% addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days, finding the assessee's explanation for not realizing the impact of the section 143(1) intimation to be convincing. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after admitting the appeal.
The CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. The tribunal found that the additional income offered by the assessee was sufficient to cover both the undisclosed income and the undisclosed application of income.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to point out exceptions to the monetary limit rule.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided various documents and details in the paper book supporting its claim. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the relevant documents and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely seeking to correct a data entry error, not making a fresh claim. The Tribunal found that the correct cost of acquisition was supported by documentary evidence from the assessee's sister.
The Tribunal held that one car parking space, purchased under an agreement explicitly stating it was attached to the flat, should be treated as part of the flat and its gain as long-term. However, the other two parking spaces, due to separate accounting and transfer dates, were correctly treated as short-term capital assets.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that transponder charges are not royalty income. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It partly allowed the appeal on labour expenses, reducing the disallowance to 3% of cash payments. The interest on delayed VAT payment was allowed, but interest on delayed TDS payment was disallowed. The addition on account of bogus purchases was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had utilized the borrowed funds for trading in shares and investments, which generated taxable income. The revenue failed to provide evidence of diversion of funds for other purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions related to share application money, unsecured loans, and joint venture investments, as the AO failed to establish that these were not genuine transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries regarding the source of partly paid shares and had issued notices under Section 142(1) seeking details from subscriber parties. Therefore, the PCIT's conclusion that these aspects were not examined was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering additional evidence for the unsecured loans. It also found that the CIT(A) did not properly disprove the source of cash deposits for another loan. However, the disallowance of interest on a loan at a higher rate and interest on a personal loan were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the advance rent received was a commercial transaction for providing office premises on lease. Since the assessee had offered this income for tax in the subsequent year and the lower authorities failed to prove otherwise, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was incorrect as the assessee had complied with the conditions by physically filing Form 10. The Tribunal noted that online filing of Form 10 was not mandatory for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) was not sustainable as it was not an apparent error and the assessee's objections were not properly addressed, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's order in similar circumstances. It was held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted, and a 12.5% disallowance was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, citing principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. The disputed issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination on merits.