Loading ITAT cases…
553 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended time granted by the Supreme Court and CBDT circulars due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) did not arise.
The Tribunal held that if the AO does not make any addition on the issue for which the case was reopened, the PCIT cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 263 to bring other issues to tax. The AO is debarred from making additions on issues not forming the basis of reopening.
The Tribunal held that interest income from tax-free government bonds is exempt under Section 10(15)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. For AY 2014-15, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification, while for AY 2015-16, the addition was deleted based on prior tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the VSVS scheme.
The Tribunal held that the case should be remanded back to the First Appellate Authority. The authority should decide the issue afresh after considering all the evidence filed by the assessee and providing a copy of the remand report.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shops and flats constituted business income as the assessee systematically acquired and sold them as stock-in-trade. It also allowed brokerage expenses incurred on the sale of capital assets as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shops and flats constituted business income as the assessee systematically acquired and sold them as stock-in-trade. It also allowed brokerage expenses incurred on the sale of capital assets as a deduction.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if the AO considers the transactions as not genuine, it implies a rejection of the books of account. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances based on the absence of explicit book rejection was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases from Hanuman Steel were not fully substantiated regarding transportation and delivery, the AO was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. The CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 40A(3) without proper notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions, and the quantum appeal was also pending. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the error was due to a technical fault and software changes, not deliberate. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to file a condonation petition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's detention. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside as it was passed ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that the application under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) should have been considered for regular registration under section 12AB, not provisional registration. The order granting provisional registration was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not permissible. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision that the relevant amendment is prospective.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance out of interest expenditure was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded the investment value. For general expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 25,000 was deemed appropriate.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the seized documents were not incriminating and did not link to the assessee, and that the AO had not discharged the onus to prove the transaction was not genuine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction for clinical trials, consultancy, and quality control expenses, stating that such claims have been accepted in various prior decisions. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the inclusion of education cess in MAT credit calculations.
The Tribunal held that the application under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) should have been considered for regular registration under section 12AB, not provisional registration. The order granting provisional registration was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal found that the core issue of notional interest income was identical to the one pending before the High Court. Therefore, the appeal was accepted under Section 158A and disposed of, with the direction to apply the High Court's decision when it becomes final.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not applicable for non-compliance with a notice under Section 148. Furthermore, the facts indicated that the assessee had complied with the notice by filing a return and responding to other notices.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the requirement was to file the audit report along with the return of income, and the amendment making it mandatory to file before the due date under Section 44AB was effective only from AY 2020-21. Therefore, the assessee had complied with the provisions.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as they were verified by government authorities at the SEZ where the assessee is located, and followed a coordinate bench decision on identical facts. The addition made by the AO was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored the issues of free samples and valuation of closing stock of finished goods, raw material, and accessories to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider supporting evidence from the assessee and to treat any additions to closing stock as opening stock in the next year.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to cooperate and the ex-parte nature of the previous orders. In the interest of natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the issues in the present appeal were identical to those pending before the High Court, despite a minor difference in the period mentioned by the AO. Therefore, the appeal was accepted under Section 158A.
The Tribunal found a significant gap in the facts presented by the Assessing Officer and the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was not able to effectively substantiate the facts of the case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the protective additions. This was because substantive additions for the same amounts had already been confirmed in the hands of other entities, making the protective additions in the assessee's case unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in charitable activities for the benefit of the general public, not just its members. It noted that the genuineness of the activities was not doubted and that the amendment to Section 2(15) did not alter the charitable nature of the assessee's operations.
The tribunal held that as per Section 14 of IBC, 2016, no proceedings can be continued against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period. Therefore, it was not appropriate to proceed with the appeals.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC-2016, no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. Therefore, continuing the appeals would be a continuation of proceedings.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of non-deduction of tax on construction expenses for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) based on additional evidence. For the lease premium, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that it was in the nature of rent, but remanded the issue of whether the liability arose in the relevant year for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that losses from AY 2000-01 had lapsed as they were beyond the 8-year period. However, losses from AY 2001-02 onwards could be eligible for set off if the returns for those years were filed within the due dates. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that brokerage and advertising expenses, being selling expenses, should be allowed as period costs when incurred, as per accounting standards and judicial precedents. Similarly, interest on borrowings used for business purposes, even if for acquiring stock-in-trade, is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not verify whether the cost of the asset was claimed as an application of income in earlier years. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on this specific point.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not accept part of the investment as genuine (face value of shares) and doubt the rest (share premium). Since the assessee provided evidence of share valuation and banking channels for the transactions, the share premium was considered genuine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, based on the assessee's non-appearance. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including supplier confirmation and proof of existence, and that the supplier was no longer listed as a hawala dealer. The issue was remanded to the AO for personal examination of the supplier.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee had not disclosed the true nature of the share transactions during the original assessment. The AO had gathered new information indicating the transactions were not genuine and were designed to evade tax.
The Tribunal noted that a submission from the assessee, though undated and unaddressed, contained substantial facts. Due to the lack of clarity and proper documentation regarding this submission and other evidence, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income received during FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21) was exempt under Section 10(34) as the amended provisions taxing dividend income were applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Consequently, the assessee's claim of loss carry forward was allowed.
The Tribunal held that there was no reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal and that the assessee appeared to be not interested in pursuing it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the outset.
The Tribunal held that the executive search fees and reimbursements were not taxable in India. It followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had ruled in favor of the assessee on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer adopted the Circle Inspector's report without providing it to the assessee or giving them an adequate opportunity to respond. The Tribunal also noted a mismatch in the rent declared by the directors.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had already taxed commission income in the hands of the 24 companies. To avoid double taxation, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if these companies accepted the commission income and paid taxes on it.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in holding the dividend income from BPCL Trust as not exempt under Section 10(34), following a previous decision. However, it directed a de novo examination of the Section 32AC deduction concerning Capital Work-in-Progress.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee could not be filed before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) had rejected it. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not strike off either of the twin charges (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception cited by the Revenue for reopening of assessment was held to be applicable only to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings.