Loading ITAT cases…
272 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under section 143(1) is permissible if an incorrect claim is apparent from the return. The deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI is only allowed if deposited within the due dates as per the respective Acts, as per the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding reassessment proceedings as not pressed. It dismissed the ground on tax rates, following previous decisions against the assessee. The grounds on data processing fees and interest paid to overseas branches were allowed in favor of the assessee, relying on earlier rulings. Penalty proceedings were kept open as premature, and interest under sections 234B and 234C were remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment by passing a separate speaking order before passing the reassessment order. Failure to do so renders the reassessment order bad in law and passed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documentation and that the CPC's processing under Section 143(1) was flawed. The CIT(A)'s order referring the matter back to the AO was also deemed to lack legal strength.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe' escapement of income. The AO failed to conduct preliminary inquiries to establish a nexus between the investors and accommodation entry operators.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T, as the transaction was an internal adjustment between related parties and avoiding an 'empty formality' of cheque transactions. Therefore, penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the finding that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries. However, it directed the AO to re-estimate the commission income based solely on debit entries in the bank statement, requiring the assessee to produce the statement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing documents like the lender's audited accounts, bank statements, and ITR. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the finding that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries. However, it directed the AO to re-estimate the commission income based solely on debit entries in the bank statement, requiring the assessee to produce the statement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of taxing the alleged undisclosed income without granting the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the information received from the other ward was not properly processed and that the AO had not established the receipt of cash by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO initiated them beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The material regarding the expenditure was already available during the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal due to the bonafide reasons presented. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional interest income was not sustainable as no real interest accrued or was received. It also upheld the deletion of an addition related to redevelopment project proceeds as the sale transaction was not concluded in the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are bad in law if no addition is made based on the recorded reasons for reopening. Since the addition was made on a ground not specified in the reasons, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional interest income was not sustainable as no real interest accrued or was received. It also upheld the deletion of an addition related to redevelopment project proceeds as the sale transaction was not concluded in the year under consideration.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee could not appear or comply. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts. The Tribunal deleted the addition of LTCG and alleged commission.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging and did not find fault with the purchase and sale documents. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the long-term capital gains could not be assessed as unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's investments were funded by its own funds, not borrowed ones.
The Tribunal decided that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on account of share premium. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investors.
The Tribunal deleted the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, following its previous decisions where substantive additions were made in the hands of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. Any income not covered by the substantive additions was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice. It held that interest paid on loans borrowed for introducing capital in a partnership firm is deductible against remuneration received from the firm, as remuneration is considered income from business.
The Tribunal held that provision of guarantee to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction and directed the AO to charge guarantee commission at 0.5%. It also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment for brand royalty, stating that the assessee does not own the brand and thus cannot charge royalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when income is assessed on an ad-hoc estimation basis. Following various High Court and Coordinate Bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was for the transfer of goodwill, as stated in the settlement agreement. Therefore, the capital gains arising from this transaction were correctly offered to tax by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that provision of guarantee to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction and directed the AO to charge guarantee commission at 0.5%. It also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment for brand royalty, stating that the assessee does not own the brand and thus cannot charge royalty.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹.32.38 Crores was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the funds originated from Bhupendra Surani and not the assessee, with no evidence to the contrary presented by the revenue. The addition of ₹.4.38 Crores was also deleted as Sanika had paid tax on this amount under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal decided that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on account of share premium. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investors.
The Tribunal decided that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on account of share premium. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investors.
The Tribunal decided that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on account of share premium. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investors.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 were invalid due to non-service of notice under Section 148 and failure to provide reasons for reopening. The assessment order was also passed in the name of a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal held that delayed payments of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, made after the statutory due date, are not allowable as a deduction. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 were invalid due to non-service of notice under Section 148 and failure to provide reasons for reopening. The assessment order was also passed in the name of a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view of the matter after examining the facts, including the insurance policy details and the company's treatment of premiums as investments. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings.
For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that reassessment for the same purchases was a change of opinion and deleted the addition. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be restricted to the gross profit ratio of 4% on the turnover, aligning with the previous year's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not offering interest on income tax refund while filing the return of income was bona fide. The non-declaration was not considered under-reporting of income as per Section 270A.
For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that reassessment for the same purchases was a change of opinion and deleted the addition. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be restricted to the gross profit ratio of 4% on the turnover, aligning with the previous year's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 were invalid due to non-service of notice under Section 148 and failure to provide reasons for reopening. The assessment order was also passed in the name of a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 were invalid due to non-service of notice under Section 148 and failure to provide reasons for reopening. The assessment order was also passed in the name of a non-existent entity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, including co-operative banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The insertion of Section 80P(4) does not affect this eligibility.
The Tribunal held that the foreclosure costs on early redemption of preference shares were capital in nature, as indicated by the assessee's own tax audit report (Form 3CD). Similarly, share issue expenses were also treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's order regarding these additions.