Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' provident fund contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the Provident Fund Act are not allowable as a deduction. The due date for deposit is to be reckoned from the end of the month in which wages become due, not from the date of salary payment.
The Tribunal held that belated payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is not an allowable deduction as per the Supreme Court in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it remanded the matter for verification of a specific instance where payment was made on the next day due to a Sunday. The TDS credit was allowed after due verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was valid as the tax audit report clearly indicated the delayed deposit of employee PF contributions. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited was found to squarely cover the issue against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is relevant only for Co-operative Banks licensed by the RBI to do banking business. Since the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society and not a Co-operative Bank in that sense, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from Co-operative Banks is allowable.
The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the ex-parte order and agreed to hear the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the loan was transferred via bank transaction and the assessee provided company master data of the lender. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the lender's meagre profit and net worth not corresponding to the loan amount.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance is valid as the law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in 'Checkmate Services', mandates that employee contributions must be paid within the due date prescribed by the Provident Fund Act to be allowable as a deduction. Decisions of the jurisdictional High Court prior to this clarification were not considered binding in this context.
The Tribunal noted that agricultural income of co-owners from the same land was accepted in earlier years. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence to prove the agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was valid as the tax audit report clearly indicated the delayed deposit of employee PF contributions. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited was found to squarely cover the issue against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67, and that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. It was also held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Act and Rules.
The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. Consequently, the ex-parte order was recalled, and the appeals were taken up for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the income from consulting and engineering services and management/common cost recharge should not be treated as FTS or Royalty under the India-UK DTAA. This decision followed a consistent view taken in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263 regarding the cash deposits, as the AO failed to verify the source and denomination of these deposits. However, regarding the discrepancy in gross receipts, the Tribunal found no justification for invoking Section 263 as the assessee had offered higher income than reported in 26AS, indicating no revenue loss.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of charging notional interest was not prudent, especially when recovery of principal was doubtful and legal proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had substantial surplus funds which were utilized for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made sufficient enquiries and the MTM loss was reversed and offered to tax in the subsequent year, thus not causing prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that a new issue was raised by the PCIT without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute LTCG using the DVO's valuation. It also allowed a portion of the expenses claimed by the assessee related to a society payment, while disallowing other expenses.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was time-barred. However, it dismissed the grounds related to education cess and dividend distribution tax refund.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is correct. Employees' contribution to provident fund remitted after the due date under the Provident Fund Act is disallowable.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases is taxable. Following its own decision for AY 2011-12, it directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the facts were identical to a previous year where a coordinate bench had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is correct. Employees' contribution to provident fund remitted after the due date under the Provident Fund Act is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the mutual fund investment with confirmation from the fund house and bank statements, and had also redeemed the investment. Therefore, the addition for unexplained investment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the manufacturing of solar dish was a new venture, distinct from the assessee's existing trading business. Therefore, the loss incurred on abandoning this new project was capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income was wholly exempt and its business model was to earn only exempt income, all incurred expenses were related to earning such income. Therefore, these expenses could not be allowed or carried forward against taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal due to a substantial delay without any condonation application.
The Tribunal held that since the sales from these purchases were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. Following various High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 5%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the relevant CBDT circular and the possibility of technical issues. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to a marginal delay. The delay was considered bonafide as the assessee was residing abroad.
The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders in the name of a non-existent company, even with an active PAN, renders the order void. Since the assessee had duly informed the AO about the amalgamation, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of a non-existent company, even with an active PAN, are void ab initio. The AO's continuation of proceedings after being informed of the merger rendered the assessment orders invalid.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, in the interest of natural justice, as the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, which mandates offering income on a presumptive basis, the addition of professional receipts as undisclosed income under Section 68 was not tenable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on a substantive basis, leading to potential double taxation as the same amount was added in the hands of Shri Bhawarlal Jain. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) converted a protective addition to a substantive addition without issuing a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that running a chemist shop is incidental and ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital, and that the assessee had complied with the twin conditions of Section 11(4A) by maintaining separate books of accounts. Therefore, the profit from the pharmacy store is not taxable as business income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the irrelevant limb was not struck off. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal further noted that estimated additions do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the ground related to the unsecured loan addition, directing the AO to delete it. The Tribunal also allowed the ground concerning the addition of interest, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order based on a previous ruling.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ignored the assessee's submissions and supporting material. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo decision after verification of the provided documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed its original return within the due date, and the CPC had mistakenly categorized the revised return as the original one. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal due to a substantial delay without any condonation application.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' share of PF and ESI contributions beyond the due date is not an allowable deduction as per Section 36(1)(va). This position is settled by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services case.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It followed its own previous decisions on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 56(2)(viib) as the assessee had merely restructured its liability by converting a loan into equity. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that the AO cannot substitute their own valuation when a recognized method like DCF is used and the valuation is based on projections.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, including financial statements and bank statements, and had incurred a loss on the sale of shares. The AO's addition was based on an investigation report without independent inquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order for AY 2013-14 had been quashed by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the current appeal, arising from a rectification of that quashed order, had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It followed its own previous decisions on similar facts.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. This was done because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings, with liberty granted to restore the appeals after the moratorium period.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. This was done because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings, with liberty granted to restore the appeals after the moratorium period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a set-off of the gross profit already declared in its books of accounts against the ad-hoc profit added by the AO, to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Indian company acted on a principal-to-principal basis, the assessee had no business connection in India, and no operations were carried out in India. Therefore, no income was taxable in India.