Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) was not justified. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's view that payments made before the due date of filing the return are deductible, even if delayed beyond the statutory due date for PF contribution.
The Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them to the Assessing Officer for further investigation. The AO was directed to gather more information regarding the account's operation, beneficiaries, and potential money laundering activities.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Explanation to Section 73 of the Act is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. It agreed with the lower authorities that the appellant's principal business was not banking.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which clarified the due dates for such deposits, were prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which clarified the due dates for such deposits, were prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider dividend-yielding investments for calculating average investment value. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for recomputation of disallowance under Section 14A, considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, considering the profit element and the fact that the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issues raised were beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's action effectively negated the system of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹40,157/- under Section 68 was incorrect as it represented TDS receivable, but directed verification for any interest component. It allowed the deduction for interest on delayed tax payments, citing precedent that such interest is compensatory and allowable under Section 37(1). The Tribunal also allowed the provision for TDRs, considering it an accrued liability in line with the percentage completion method.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs is not justified when payments are made before the return filing due date, especially when supported by jurisdictional High Court judgments. The tax auditor's report does not bind the assessee and the 'due date' under Section 36(1)(va) is not decisive in this context.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income from house property and income from other sources, as the business need not be continued. Forex loss and administrative expenses were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on certain issues, including the estimation of profit at 3% and dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the validity of the assessment order being passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 instead of Section 144. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's ground regarding fixed assets as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions to PF and ESIC were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was incorrect. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that there were insufficient evidences on record to determine the nature and character of the payment received by the assessee from Rabobank. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the assessment was confined to the limited issues for which the case was selected under CASS. The Pr. CIT cannot expand the scope of assessment beyond what the AO was empowered to examine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the discounts allowed to prepaid distributors on the sale of starter kits and recharge vouchers were not in the nature of commission. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding securities being stock-in-trade and not incurring expenditure were not realistic, especially as dividend income was claimed as exempt. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the AO's calculation and the balance sheet figures.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and verified the facts related to the bad debts claim, even if not explicitly detailed in the assessment order. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order did not meet the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO's doubts were considered surmise without cogent material.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made complete inquiries into the mismatch between 26AS receipts and the income recognized in the profit and loss account. The assessee's method of revenue recognition, as per agreements and consistently followed, was also accepted by the Tribunal, thus the PCIT's order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to verify facts regarding interest on partners' capital, as per previous ITAT directions, and that the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly confirmed as the assessee failed to prove investments were made from interest-free funds.
The Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them to the Assessing Officer for further investigation. The AO was directed to gather more information regarding the account's operation, beneficiaries, and potential money laundering activities.
The Tribunal held that the income earned from the property is chargeable to tax as business income, not income from house property, based on the assessee's Memorandum of Association and relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income was earned. For transfer pricing, it was held that corporate guarantees constitute international transactions, but the commission rate was restricted to 0.5% based on previous rulings. Interest on delayed receivables from AEs was not to be charged, aligning with the assessee's practice for non-AEs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated based on an improper notice, as there was a lack of clarity and inconsistency in the grounds for levying the penalty. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, such improperly initiated proceedings are considered bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan from Vishal Sheth, relying on a coordinate bench's decision. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was ad-hoc and reduced it.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal regarding the labour charges, stating that the disallowance was made solely because some bills were in the husband's name, and the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan from Vishal Sheth, relying on a coordinate bench's decision. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was ad-hoc and reduced it.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's initiation of revision proceedings under section 263 was not proper. It agreed with the assessee that the Assessing Officer had already made additions for the unaccounted receipts in an earlier assessment year, and taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and affidavits, to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal noted that the loans were repaid and no cash transactions were involved.
The Tribunal held that when material is found during a search on one entity and pertains to another, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the reopening under Section 147 was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) for late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI when deposited before the due date of filing the return, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and affidavits, to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal noted that the loans were repaid and no cash transactions were involved.
The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) for late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI when deposited before the due date of filing the return, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) should have been considered for regular registration, not provisional. The DIT was directed to re-examine the application and grant registration as per law.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the books of account and making additions without pointing out specific defects. The assessee's admission during the search was a general statement and not supported by documentary evidence, and the GP rate could fluctuate yearly.
The ITAT held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make the adjustment under section 143(1) as there were High Court decisions in favor of the assessee prior to the amendment. The Tribunal also opined that the explanation added by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective.
The Tribunal disagreed with the assessee's contention that disallowances were made on a logical and scientific basis, finding that the basis adopted by the assessee was not supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal on similar grounds for the same assessment year had already been decided in favor of the assessee. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute this. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was beyond jurisdiction. It reasoned that if information is received by the revenue subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, the assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous under Section 263.
The Tribunal heard the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The specific decision of the Tribunal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee's non-resident status and travel restrictions. The appeal was then remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's initiation of revision proceedings under section 263 was not proper. It agreed with the assessee that the Assessing Officer had already made additions for the unaccounted receipts in an earlier assessment year, and taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that payments made for employee's contribution before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction, following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act 2021 was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) for late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI when deposited before the due date of filing the return, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective.
The tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions which state that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021.