Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to the lack of proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the assessee and considering relevant submissions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to the ongoing moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The assessee was granted liberty to refile the appeal or seek recall of the order once the moratorium period ends.
The Tribunal held that employees' contributions deducted but deposited after the due date are not allowable as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision follows the Apex Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the bogus purchases and did not appear for the hearing.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become academic because the Assessing Officer did not pass an order within the prescribed limitation period after the Section 263 direction. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the share transactions were conducted through a registered broker on a recognized stock exchange, reflected in the Demat account, and supported by documentation, the AO was not justified in treating the sale proceeds as unexplained income. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case fell under the exceptions notified by the CBDT, making the third proviso to Section 10(38) and the conditions under Section 112A not applicable in a manner that denied the exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the additions.
The Tribunal restricted the addition on account of purchases to an estimated gross profit of 4% of the turnover. The addition on account of capital introduction was found to be duly proved and was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly set aside the assessment order as the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147 when the case involved a search operation and the assessment year fell within the ambit of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that income belonging to a partnership firm, whether disclosed or undisclosed, can only be taxed in the hands of the firm and not in the hands of the partners. The addition made in the hands of the assessee was therefore deleted on merits.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, holding that the assessee is an educational institute and the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply. The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine the Section 10(23C) approval and compute income under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and should decide it on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Section 14A, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the average value of investments. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the SEBI's final order exonerated the scrip and the broker, and the investigation report, based on third-party statements recorded behind the assessee's back without cross-examination, could not be relied upon. Suspicious rise in share price alone cannot substitute evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of advertisement expense disallowance, citing consistency with prior years and the genuineness of the expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had inconsistently argued for different transfer pricing methods at various stages. Due to this inconsistency and lack of a proper transfer pricing study, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and remanded the matter back to the TPO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had inconsistently argued for different transfer pricing methods at various stages. Due to this inconsistency and lack of a proper transfer pricing study, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and remanded the matter back to the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not independently examine the assessee's documents and relied solely on the investigation report. Citing jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the assessee's transactions were conducted through registered brokers, stock exchanges, and banking channels, and STT was paid.
The Tribunal found that the AO incorrectly added deposits pertaining to other assessment years and unexplained items. It restored the issues of credit card loan and market creation limited deposit to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the capital gains on Sampada Chemicals Limited shares in the original return. It also followed a previous decision to allow the assessee's claim for short-term capital gains on the sale of Comfort Intech Limited shares.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The order was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, especially when service of notices was not clearly established. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the extraordinary circumstances faced by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal remitted several issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, including employee's contribution to PF, reversal of provisions under section 43B, TDS credit, advance tax credit, and foreign tax credit. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the short holding period and the minor loss incurred due to market fluctuation indicated genuine trading activity. The AO's addition of the purchase consideration and notional brokerage was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely based on an increase in cash sales during demonetization if the sales are duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by stock records. The assessee had maintained regular books of accounts, produced sale bills, and demonstrated a correlation between cash deposits and sales.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, holding that the assessee is an educational institute and the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply. The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine the Section 10(23C) approval and compute income under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, as it is settled law that appeals must be decided on merits even if the assessee does not appear. The Tribunal also noted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books was not justified as the conditions for invoking Section 145(3) were not met. It also found that the AO's finding of no corresponding sales was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Supreme Court judgments that advocate for a liberal approach in such matters. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was wrongly deleted by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal allowed the deletion of provisions for unforeseen losses, stating they were contingent and not ascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing Supreme Court judgments that advocate for a liberal approach in such matters. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, as it is settled law that appeals must be decided on merits even if the assessee does not appear. The Tribunal also noted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of operating and managing a mall, including providing various amenities and services, constitute a commercial activity. Therefore, the income derived from these activities should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's decisions for prior and subsequent assessment years, set aside the issue of the most appropriate method for transfer pricing adjustments back to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer. This was due to the TPO not providing reasons for rejecting the assessee's chosen methods and the potential for incorrect application of methods.
The Tribunal held that the employer's contribution to PF/ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance should be restricted only to the employee's contribution.
The Tribunal remitted several issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication, including employee's contribution to PF, reversal of provisions under section 43B, TDS credit, advance tax credit, and foreign tax credit. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted and inventory is not disputed. Only the profit embedded in bogus purchases can be added. The suppressed profit was estimated at 4%.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have accessed the correct order from the Assessing Officer's records instead of dismissing the appeal. The tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that Co-operative Banks are registered as Co-operative Societies, thus satisfying the condition for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Totgars case was deemed distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESIC, if deposited after the prescribed due date under the relevant Act, is not an allowable deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal decided that short-term capital gains on mutual fund units are taxable under capital gains. It also allowed club expenses and R&D expenditure disallowances, deleted commission disallowances, and directed recomputation of Section 14A disallowance. Transfer pricing adjustments on corporate guarantee were set aside to the TPO/AO for further examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in allowing accumulation of income at 15% of gross receipts as per the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Co-operative Banks are registered as Co-operative Societies, thus satisfying the condition for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Totgars case was deemed distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for provisions on standard assets and restructured debts needed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer. Regarding interest calculation, the Tribunal ruled that any fraction of a month should be treated as a full month as per Rule 119A(b), not ignored as per Rule 119A(a).
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for provisions on standard assets and restructured debts needed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer. Regarding interest calculation, the Tribunal ruled that any fraction of a month should be treated as a full month as per Rule 119A(b), not ignored as per Rule 119A(a).
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.