Loading ITAT cases…
362 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternate prayer and restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of the exempt income earned. The disallowance was limited to Rs. 1,09,353/-.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it void. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed barred by limitation and quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it void. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed barred by limitation and quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the sustained addition was purely on an ad-hoc basis due to estimated GP rates on purchases, it could not lead to an inference of concealment of income. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the business operations should be treated as undeclared business income, not unexplained investment. Therefore, Section 69 and consequently Section 115BBE were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it void. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed barred by limitation and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous assessment years where the Tribunal had consistently allowed the deduction for the assessee. The assessee, being a co-operative credit society and not a primary co-operative bank, was not hit by the provisions of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 5% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue of the non-issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the records and decide the issue.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for other assessment years. It held that when sales are accepted as genuine, only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be added, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue of the non-issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the records and decide the issue.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting its importance in decision-making. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision considering the evidence and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte decision was not sustainable as the assessee had indeed filed submissions earlier. The matter was set aside to the NFAC to re-examine the appeal after calling for the original submissions or directing the assessee to refile them.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by submitting sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO and CIT(A) had overlooked these vital documents.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It held that the identity and creditworthiness of the lender (BMPL) were established, and the transaction was conducted through banking channels, making the genuineness of the loan undeniable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground challenging the assessment order due to non-compliance with previous proceedings. Regarding the addition of Rs. 6 lacs as unexplained investment, the Tribunal found that the seized documents and the statement of Shri Jiva Rathinam corroborated the assessee's unaccounted investment.
The Tribunal held that the DCIT lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2) and frame the assessment under Section 143(3) as the assessee's returned income was below Rs. 30 Lakhs, which falls under the jurisdiction of the ITO as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the AO's action was without jurisdiction and null.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the amendment to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, extending the limitation period, could not revive a right to reopen an assessment that was already time-barred under the previous provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
For AY 2019-20, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the dates of receipt from employees and deposit. For AY 2018-19, the disallowance was upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bonafide reliance on professional advice. The Tribunal also admitted the additional evidence and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, estimating it at 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that no specific payment was made towards the non-compete clause, as the share purchase price was below the market value of the shares. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, estimating it at 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that no specific payment was made towards the non-compete clause, as the share purchase price was below the market value of the shares. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 194J.
For AY 2019-20, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify deposit dates in light of the Supreme Court's decision. For AY 2018-19, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's financial difficulties and the pandemic. On merits, it held that the loss incurred from trading in shares should be allowed as a business loss and directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 68, acknowledging the double addition.
The Tribunal found that lower authorities had not adequately examined the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of investors. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition under Section 68 and allowed the claimed short-term capital loss on share transactions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for foreign tax credit, following a coordinate bench's decision that filing Form 67 with a revised return before the completion of assessment is acceptable.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that no incriminating material was found during the search to sustain them, and the assessment was unabated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that in the absence of incriminating material, the invocation of Section 153C was unjustified for an unabated assessment year.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to principles of natural justice, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application and adjudicate the appeal afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity for hearing.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance, without fully appreciating the grounds challenging the penalty. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that lower authorities did not adequately examine the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of investors. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments for royalty and technical know-how should be considered at Arm's Length Price (ALP) based on previous Tribunal decisions and RBI approvals. For reimbursement of expenses, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of complete details.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, which held that cooperative banks remain cooperative societies for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issues back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that in 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 CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that adjustments for future annual maintenance contract income, higher customs duty, extraordinary replacement costs, and indigenization costs were not allowable. However, the assessee was granted credit for short TDS after verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made the donation through banking channels and provided all relevant information. The trust's registration was cancelled only subsequently, and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiry to prove that the donation was returned in cash. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the compensation received for alternate accommodation during redevelopment is a capital receipt and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing banking evidence and donation receipts. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition for bogus donation and the consequential commission.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80IA deduction to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering the facts and judicial decisions. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.