Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning the section was inadvertent and the CIT(A) should have sought clarification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on technical grounds was set aside. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the offshore supply contracts were concluded outside India and therefore, the income derived therefrom was not taxable in India. Consequently, these receipts should not be included for computation of income under Section 44BBB.
The Tribunal held that investments received through amalgamation, where no interest-bearing funds were utilized, should not be considered for disallowance. Furthermore, since the assessee's own funds exceeded the remaining investments, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted, following precedents from the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that reversal of audit fees is part of business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, electricity bill counter income and office rent & tax deposit are not related to banking business and are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The tribunal found that ITA No. 1211/Mum/2021 was a duplicate of the appeal filed in ITA No. 1664/Mum/2021. Therefore, the appeal numbered ITA No. 1211/Mum/2021 was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal has corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The amount of Rs.789.67 crores has been rectified to Rs.78.69 crores.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee defaulted in complying with notices, no malafide intention could be attributed due to the special circumstances of the pandemic. The penalty levied was deemed unsustainable and deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated under, leading to a deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that donations received for capital projects, indicated by terms like 'CHF' on receipts, should be considered corpus donations and exempt. The issue of depreciation was also restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee defaulted in complying with notices, no malafide intention could be attributed due to the special circumstances of the pandemic. The penalty levied was deemed unsustainable and deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issues back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which explained the delay in submitting information to the AO. The CIT(A) did not call for a remand report or controvert the assessee's explanation.
The tribunal remanded the issue of interest income to the AO for verification to avoid double taxation. The issue of business loss was also remanded for de novo adjudication. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as it was not based on incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity in the AO's reasoning. However, for the sundry balance write-off, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of cash payment in the civil suit was evidence of the payment. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of this cash payment, it was rightly treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding the firm's dissolution, finding the dissolution deed questionable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity in the AO's reasoning. However, for the sundry balance write-off, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds related to the denial of an opportunity to be heard and the commission addition.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was indeed barred by limitation as it was passed one day late. Consequently, the entire transfer pricing adjustment and the final assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was indeed barred by limitation as it was passed one day late. Consequently, the entire transfer pricing adjustment and the final assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were maintainable as they were against assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act, which are appealable. The CIT(A) should have decided the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were maintainable as they were against assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act, which are appealable. The CIT(A) should have decided the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were maintainable as they were against assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act, which are appealable. The CIT(A) should have decided the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of a non-existent entity are void and cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, all such assessment orders and consequential orders are liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity in the AO's reasoning. However, for the sundry balance write-off, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions, which were conducted through banking channels and at market rates. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to disprove the transactions or link any unaccounted money to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order before passing the reassessment order, as mandated by Supreme Court and High Court decisions, rendered the reopening and subsequent reassessment order bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee had maintained audited books of accounts, provided details for sales above Rs. 2 lakh, and demonstrated that the cash deposits were from genuine sales recorded in the books.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the AO made the addition on an estimated basis without specifying deficiencies in the submitted details or indicating what further information was required.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the AO made the addition on an estimated basis without specifying deficiencies in the submitted details or indicating what further information was required.
The tribunal deleted the protective addition under section 56(2)(x) as the reclassification of the loan to advance against property was not a taxable event. The issue of unexplained expenditure was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the break-up of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. has settled the issue, stating that delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESIC contributions beyond the due dates prescribed by the respective acts are not allowable. Such claims are considered incorrect claims apparent from the return, justifying adjustment under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. has settled the issue, stating that delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESIC contributions beyond the due dates prescribed by the respective acts are not allowable. Such claims are considered incorrect claims apparent from the return, justifying adjustment under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not decide the assessee's alternative claim to compute disallowance based on average investment from which exempt income was received, rather than total investment. This aspect required verification.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments were not liable for tax and the assessee should not be penalized for bonafide errors in filing returns. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments were not liable for tax and the assessee should not be penalized for bonafide errors in filing returns. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) order was not a speaking order and did not properly consider the facts. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and bonafide reasons for the delay in filing the return of income. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271F was deleted in accordance with Section 273B.
The ITAT observed that the assessee failed to appear or file submissions before the CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of the addition. However, to ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal found cogency in the assessee's contentions and accepted the request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company is undergoing liquidation proceedings. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed with liberty to restore it after the moratorium period ends.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication. It directed that employer's contribution paid before the due date of filing the return should be allowed under section 43B, while employee's contribution paid after the due date should be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was unsustainable because the assessee claimed to have appeared and filed a reply, which was allegedly ignored by the AO. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without controverting this fact.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of substantial justice. However, due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance and disregard for proceedings before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash sales, including bills with customer addresses and PANs, and matching stock and cash books. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting details within 90 days, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) was not justified as the conditions were not met. It also noted that disallowing 100% of purchases without disturbing sales is incorrect, and only the profit embedded in sales should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESIC, if paid after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash sales, including bills with customer addresses and PANs, and matching stock and cash books. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a sale agreement and a valuer's report indicating the land was agricultural. The AO had also determined the consideration as per Section 50C, and the assessee claimed LTCG under Section 54B.