Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal held that the additions based on loose papers could not be sustained as there was no evidence to prove they belonged to the assessee, were in her handwriting, or were found in her possession. However, the addition for deemed rental income from house property was upheld.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders based on invalid orders passed in the name of a non-existent entity are unsustainable. Consequently, the final assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not responding to the notice due to the pandemic and lockdown restrictions. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's written submissions.
The Tribunal held that the additions based on loose papers could not be sustained as there was no evidence to prove they belonged to the assessee, were in her handwriting, or were found in her possession. However, the addition for deemed rental income from house property was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the additions based on loose papers could not be sustained as there was no evidence to prove they belonged to the assessee, were in her handwriting, or were found in her possession. However, the addition for deemed rental income from house property was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of belated deposits of employee contributions to PF and ESIC was settled by the Apex Court in Checkmate Services P Ltd. However, to verify the factual aspect of whether the deposit was made before the due date, the issue was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish details of the transaction before the CIT(A). To ensure natural justice, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 164(1) clearly carves out an exception for trusts declared by will, which are the only trusts so declared, meaning they should not be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The CPC was therefore not justified in applying this rate.
The Tribunal held that the AO was correct in computing Annual Letting Value (ALV) on notional rent for unsold stock, but with specific riders. These included not charging notional rent if advances were received or if the unit was shown as work-in-progress, and computing ALV based on Municipal Ratable Value.
The Tribunal admitted additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the AO's premise of the return declaring 'Nil' income was erroneous, as the e-filing acknowledgement number was the same for both the return filed on 14/06/2018 and the one filed on 03/10/2018 declaring a loss. The AO was directed to allow the current year loss claimed.
The Tribunal condoned the 11-minute delay in filing the return, considering the technical glitches faced by the appellant. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the carry forward of the business loss, stating that denial solely on account of such a minor delay would be a travesty of justice.
The Tribunal held that while the entire purchases could not be added, applying a gross profit rate on such purchases was justified. It reduced the GP rate from 12.5% to 5% on the alleged bogus purchases.
The tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice, irrespective of the accounting method. It directed the exclusion of interest income assessed on an accrual basis in one year from taxation in a subsequent year on a cash basis.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bona fide reasons. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to verify the e-filing and adjudicate the appeal on merits if it was not already decided.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee seeking an adjournment. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for genuine, delivery-based share transactions. The issue of F&O losses was restored to the AO for de novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view was plausible and the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The Tribunal noted that relevant facts were on record and the PCIT's grounds for revision were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, including the Explanation, is prospective and effective from April 1, 2022. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO was correct in computing Annual Letting Value (ALV) on notional rent for unsold stock, but with specific riders. These included not charging notional rent if advances were received or if the unit was shown as work-in-progress, and computing ALV based on Municipal Ratable Value.
The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make necessary compliance before the CIT(Exemption) without failure.
The Tribunal held that Section 10AA does not prescribe a specific time limit for the realization of export proceeds, unlike Section 10A. Therefore, the deduction cannot be denied solely on this ground.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering recent judicial pronouncements. The disallowance of interest under Section 14A for computing book profit under Section 115JB was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amount received as temporary accommodation charges is in the nature of compensation for displacement and is a capital receipt, not taxable under Section 56. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had successfully explained the source of the cash as part of their disclosed cash-in-hand. The Tribunal upheld this deletion.
The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make necessary compliance before the CIT(Exemption) without failure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the assessee had bonafide reasons for not complying with the notices due to being a newly registered trust with limited technical staff. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice, irrespective of the accounting method. It directed the exclusion of interest income assessed on an accrual basis in one year from taxation in a subsequent year on a cash basis.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the assessee had bonafide reasons for not complying with the notices due to being a newly registered trust with limited technical staff. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since payments for purchases were made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales, a penalty cannot be levied on an ad-hoc GP rate applied to alleged bogus purchases. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was correct in computing Annual Letting Value (ALV) on notional rent for unsold stock, but with specific riders. These included not charging notional rent if advances were received or if the unit was shown as work-in-progress, and computing ALV based on Municipal Ratable Value.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee not receiving the notices. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain had been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned during the year, relying on High Court decisions. The PCIT's view, based solely on a CBDT circular, was found unjustified as the assessee had no exempt income.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application for recall after the approval of the resolution plan.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for genuine, delivery-based share transactions. The issue of F&O losses was restored to the AO for de novo examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had inadvertently filed the return in the wrong form and failed to claim the exemption initially. The CIT(A) did not consider an adjournment request, leading to an ex parte order. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the addition to the cost of acquisition, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of Section 54F deduction back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering recent judicial pronouncements. The disallowance of interest under Section 14A for computing book profit under Section 115JB was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred by the Asset Management Company (AMC) in excess of SEBI limits, as per the investment management agreement, are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The genuineness of the expenditure and business exigencies were not doubted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits but dismissed it due to non-compliance. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a decision on merits after the assessee complies with the notices.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering recent judicial pronouncements. The disallowance of interest under Section 14A for computing book profit under Section 115JB was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering recent judicial pronouncements. The disallowance of interest under Section 14A for computing book profit under Section 115JB was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, acknowledging that a subsequent Supreme Court decision on a similar issue constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record'. Subsequently, on merits, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the PF contribution was paid within the extended due date granted by the relevant authority.