Loading ITAT cases…
362 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that interest received by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT invalidly assumed revision jurisdiction under Section 263. The revision was initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the AO, not independent application of mind, and the inquiry by the AO, though possibly inadequate, was not a complete lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not disputed the identity or creditworthiness of the creditor.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the TPO for fresh examination regarding the transfer pricing adjustments, citing similar issues in earlier years. For Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed its deletion as the assessee earned no exempt income.
The Tribunal held that interest received by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO's application of a common gross profit percentage on all sales was baseless and showed a lack of understanding of the assessee's business model. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on estimated gross profit on entire sales was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's application of a common gross profit percentage on all sales was baseless and showed a lack of understanding of the assessee's business model. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on estimated gross profit on entire sales was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for administrative expenses, despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's application of a common gross profit percentage on all sales was baseless and showed a lack of understanding of the assessee's business model. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on estimated gross profit on entire sales was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the discount given to prepaid distributors was not in the nature of commission or brokerage, and the conditions for TDS under Section 194H were not met. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, which dealt with identical facts and grounds.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the TPO for fresh examination regarding the transfer pricing adjustments, citing similar issues in earlier years. For Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed its deletion as the assessee earned no exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's application of a common gross profit percentage on all sales was baseless and showed a lack of understanding of the assessee's business model. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on estimated gross profit on entire sales was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries, and the interest income was correctly treated as business income as the property was stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings. Submissions made by the assessee were not considered due to the time-barring date. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, which was omitted, cannot be continued. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment made on the basis of the omitted provision is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as they were conducted through banking channels, registered brokers, and reflected in the Demat account. The AO's disallowance was not sustained without evidence of the assessee's involvement in illegal activities.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds for land purchase, which is part of the assessee's real estate business, is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). It also held that interest paid on borrowings for acquiring shares should be capitalized as part of the cost of acquisition for calculating short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the receipt of sale proceeds through the stock exchange. The SEBI's exoneration of the assessee from price manipulation was also considered significant.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced demand raised by the AO was not in conformity with the ITAT's directions and should be deleted. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of whether the demand for AY 2004-05 had been paid, and if so, the demand for AY 2005-06 should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte during the pandemic without hearing the assessee. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish additional evidence. The AO was directed to make necessary inquiries from third parties, including the customs department.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, and the AO's adverse inference was solely based on the statement of a third party without any specific incriminating evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal noted a similar case where such additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte during the pandemic without hearing the assessee. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte during the pandemic without hearing the assessee. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the receipt of sale proceeds through the stock exchange. The SEBI's exoneration of the assessee from price manipulation was also considered significant.
The Tribunal found that the repurchase price was at prevailing market rates, supported by evidence of similar transactions. They also noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue of whether a notice under Section 143(2) was served.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the CIT(E) might not have been properly served and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that computer software, including licenses, falls under the block of 'computers and computer software' eligible for depreciation at 60%. This is based on judicial precedents that classify software licenses as application software, not merely intangible rights.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing further appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's ad-hoc 10% markup on reimbursed expenses was not sustainable as it did not conform to prescribed methods. It also directed the AO to decide the assessee's rectification application regarding certain additions. However, it upheld the disallowance of employee PF/ESIC contributions deposited late.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity. Therefore, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the entire capital gains were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother and this was upheld by a coordinate bench, the addition in the assessee's hands was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the CIT(E) might not have been properly served and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was time-barred, rendering the subsequent draft assessment order and the final assessment order illegal and void. Consequently, the entire assessment exercise was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares constituted capital gains, not business income. It reasoned that the consideration was embedded in the share price and not separately paid for termination of management control, which is considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal remanded the gratuity provision issue to the AO for verification and upheld the disallowance of employee's PF contribution based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The credit for Dividend Distribution Tax was allowed after due verification.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts were followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to a deduction for employee's contribution to provident fund if it is not deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, especially since the assessee was ex-parte before the AO. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nexus of interest-free funds with advances made from a common pool of funds, thus confirming the disallowance of interest. It also confirmed the treatment of business center income as income from house property, following earlier years' orders.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order upholding the denial of deduction was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Regarding the merits, Ground No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed, while Ground No. 2 was partly allowed by directing the AO to exclude a duplicate entry from Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat, distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should not be included for computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also ruled that the assessee's share trading loss should be treated as business loss, not speculation loss, as its gross total income mainly comprised capital gains and income from other sources.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal on an issue not raised by the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify the exact limb for which the penalty was being levied, rendering it vague. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CPC can make adjustments for late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI while processing the return under Section 143(1). The issue regarding professional tax deduction was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable because the trust was created solely for the benefit of the settler and her relatives, and there is a specific proviso excluding such cases. Therefore, the value of equity shares settled is not taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding of inadequate inquiry was devoid of merit as the AO had conducted sufficient verification. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.