Loading ITAT cases…
384 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, disallows deductions for co-operative banks other than primary agricultural credit societies or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks. The AO's disallowance was based on this provision.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit as the limitation period starts from the date of actual receipt of the order. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, disallows deductions for co-operative banks other than primary agricultural credit societies or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks. The AO's disallowance was based on this provision.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in assuming the amount was received in cash, as bank statements and ledger accounts clearly showed the receipt of Rs. 5,50,000/- through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments made with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies for the purpose of this section.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty related to cash deposits as the underlying addition was deleted in quantum appeals. The penalty for non-refundable deposits was also deleted as the assessee had disclosed it in the balance sheet and offered it for taxation upon being pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on undisclosed income admitted in the statement under section 132(4) should be levied at 10%. For income offered in the return of income, the penalty rate should be 20%, not 30%.
The Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence for certain grounds and remit them back to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication. General grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that factual verification of the discrepancies in confirmations and the non-response from parties was necessary. Given the assessee's absence before the CIT(A), the issue was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of notional interest was not sustainable. It noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and also received interest-free advances from suppliers, which were adjusted against supplies. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the Bombay High Court and its own bench.
The Tribunal held that payments made within the grace period allowed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). However, the specific dates of payment require verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be allowed at the stage of determining the profits and gains of the eligible undertaking, prior to the adjustment of brought forward depreciation. The CIT's reasons for invoking revisional powers were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits is not sustainable. The case was set aside to be decided afresh by the CIT(A) after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty related to cash deposits as the underlying addition was deleted in quantum appeals. The penalty for non-refundable deposits was also deleted as the assessee had disclosed it in the balance sheet and offered it for taxation upon being pointed out.
The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty related to cash deposits as the underlying addition was deleted in quantum appeals. The penalty for non-refundable deposits was also deleted as the assessee had disclosed it in the balance sheet and offered it for taxation upon being pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid taxes in excess of its liability before the due date, and the omission to file the return was due to an accountant's error, not an intention to conceal income. Therefore, the penalty was inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the activity of allowing the use of the 3D machines to the hospital constituted a business activity. Therefore, the income should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to cure defects in the appeal filing, despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal concurred with the lower appellate authority's ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, disallows deductions for co-operative banks other than primary agricultural credit societies or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks. The AO's disallowance was based on this provision.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, disallows deductions for co-operative banks other than primary agricultural credit societies or primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks. The AO's disallowance was based on this provision.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was a legal issue. It held that the reference to Swiss authorities for information was not valid for the period prior to April 1, 2011, and thus the extension of limitation under Section 153B was not applicable. The assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, as the investments were not capable of generating tax-free income. This aligns with established High Court decisions.
The Tribunal decided that the penalty order was not sustainable because the underlying additions/disallowances were either deleted or remitted back to the Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on penalty was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was not appropriate for determining the ALP for export of finished goods, directing the TPO to re-compute using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). For technical support services, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies due to fluctuating or extraordinary margins.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of foreign exchange fluctuation loss and capital loss. It agreed that the forex loss was not attributable to the current assessment year as there were no corresponding purchases or payments. The write-off of furniture and fixtures was correctly treated as a capital loss, not a revenue loss.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deduction and deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that provisions for expenses are subject to TDS and that the subsequent disallowance of expenditure does not exonerate the assessee from the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for the delayed deposit of tax. The levy of interest is mandatory.
The Tribunal decided that the penalty order was not sustainable as the underlying additions were either deleted or remitted back to the Assessing Officer in the quantum appeals. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on penalty was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the orders were considered bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the cash payment of Rs. 83,175/- for transport charges was made under emergency circumstances and business expediency. The truckers insisted on cash payment due to their immediate need to return, and the payment was made when the bank was closed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deletion of the entire purchase addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided supporting documents and offered GP on sales, and the AO's action was based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The evidence relied upon was seized from a third party, and thus, assessment should have been under section 153C.
The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, holding that the transactions were day trading and speculative in nature, not investment. The source of purchase was explained, and the loss was to be adjusted against broker credit.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were either deleted or not sustainable, the penalty could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper bifurcation of interest income earned from cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were either deleted or not sustainable, the penalty could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refunds was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-compute the interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the refund towards the interest component and then the tax component, as per the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper bifurcation of interest income earned from cooperative banks.