Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that the PCIT is not empowered to grant registration under Section 80G subject to conditions, as there is an inbuilt mechanism within the Act to ensure compliance. The conditions imposed by the PCIT were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO levied penalty without analyzing the explanation and material on record. Since the source of purchases was from books of account and various details were furnished, the purchases could not be deemed bogus, and thus no concealment of income was found.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT is not empowered to grant conditional registration under Section 80G. The Act has an inbuilt mechanism to ensure compliance, and the Assessing Officer examines these during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire purchase amount was not justified as the assessee had shown corresponding sales and payments through banking channels. The addition made by the AO at 12.5% of purchases was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the additions made for unsecured loans, finding that the assessee failed to justify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of loans within the same year was deemed irrelevant for the purpose of Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the penalty had become infructuous due to subsequent directions regarding depreciation on capitalized pre-operating expenses.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the AO to record specific satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be made if no exempt income is earned. It also ruled that disallowances made by the AO under Section 14A should not be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on the basis of estimation and guesswork without independent inquiry. Therefore, the penalty levied and confirmed by the lower authorities is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the Settlement Commission had accepted the loan transaction as genuine in the hands of Ess Gee Developers Pvt. Ltd. and deleted the substantive additions, the protective addition made in the hands of the appellant should also be deleted. The basis for the protective addition no longer survived.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of natural justice and the society's circumstances. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, nor did it strike off the irrelevant portion. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. Commissioner's order under Section 263 was passed without independent application of mind and was based solely on an audit objection. The Tribunal quashed the revision order as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding administrative expenses was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by submitting details and that the Assessing Officer/CPC had disallowed the deduction under Section 80GGA without proper justification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition on commission/brokerage income, finding the estimation of commission at 0.6% to be justified. The addition for unexplained cash of Rs. 41 lakh was also upheld as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence and the Lodha Group did not claim ownership.
The Tribunal held that the demerger of the financial services business was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(19AA) of the Act. Consequently, it was considered a distribution of accumulated profits, making it liable for dividend distribution tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also allowed the expenses on General and Administrative claims and deleted the disallowance made for prior period expenses, following its own previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors by providing various documents. The Assessing Officer's addition was based solely on a retracted statement.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding administrative expenses was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding administrative expenses was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the surplus in the shareholders account cannot be taxed separately and that Section 14A does not apply to insurance business. The addition on account of negative reserves was also deleted, following previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors by providing various documents. The Assessing Officer's addition was based solely on a retracted statement.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, it is an essential condition for deduction that employee contributions are deposited on or before the due date specified in the EPF/ESI Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. has upheld this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the omission to issue a notice under Section 143(2) is a fundamental defect and not a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the reassessment framed by the AO was invalid due to the lack of a valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors by providing various documents. The Assessing Officer's addition was based solely on a retracted statement.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had not considered the assessee's submissions and supporting documents, which showed a short-term capital loss. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO ignored the purchase cost and the incurred loss.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the additions made for unsecured loans, finding that the assessee failed to justify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of loans within the same year was deemed irrelevant for the purpose of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during search. It also partly allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of purchases, reducing the addition.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the AO to record specific satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be made if no exempt income is earned. It also ruled that disallowances made by the AO under Section 14A should not be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal restored the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, finding that the comparability under the CUP method was not correctly applied. The additional ground regarding education cess was dismissed as not pressed, and the issue of refund of excess dividend distribution tax was restored to the AO pending a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A can only be invoked if there is actual exempt income earned during the year. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the case of Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. was deleted on merits by a coordinate bench, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee must also be deleted. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding administrative expenses was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide reasons concerning the transition to online communication. The matter was restored to the Principal CIT for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trip expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also restored the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on loans to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding administrative expenses was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The ITAT held that proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act were invalid without incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessments. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of an addition related to the sale of jewelry was justified due to the AO's failure to provide evidence regarding the loose papers on which the addition was based.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on the Assessing Officer's remand report without confronting the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This defect is jurisdictional and cannot be cured.
The Tribunal held that while exemption under Section 11 cannot be claimed without prior 12A registration, the expenses incurred for running the trust and for its charitable objects should be allowed. The AO was directed to recompute the income after allowing these expenses.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the AO to record specific satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be made if no exempt income is earned. It also ruled that disallowances made by the AO under Section 14A should not be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as the AO had not examined the assessee's contentions regarding expenditure on trust objects and exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Tribunal found that these issues constituted a mistake apparent from the record.
The ITAT held that proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act were invalid without incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessments. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of an addition related to the sale of jewelry was justified due to the AO's failure to provide evidence regarding the loose papers on which the addition was based.
The Tribunal held that the credit card commission expenses were not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was retrospective. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the credit card commission expenses were not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was retrospective. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the initial deposit was merged with the peak balance already taxed in a subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal noted that no additional evidence was brought on record by the AO to justify a separate addition.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to reasonable cause arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Following previous coordinate bench decisions, the penalty levied was deleted.