Loading ITAT cases…
572 orders · Page 7 of 12
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear nor represent their case at any stage, including before the Tribunal. However, considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits after considering the material and also erred in dismissing it ex-parte without adhering to principles of natural justice. The assessee was also directed to make proper compliance.
The Tribunal held that the right to set off short-term capital loss against short-term capital gains under Section 70(2) is unqualified. The difference in tax rates (15% vs 30%) does not affect the computation of capital gains, which is governed by separate sections. Therefore, the AO erred in denying the set-off.
The Tribunal restored the case to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the bank deposits were from normal business activities and had filed relevant documentary evidence before the CIT(A) as additional evidence. However, the CIT(A) did not deal with these additional evidences as prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found that the claim of the assessee that the amount deposited in the bank account was out of his normal business activities was not examined and verified at the level of the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for verification of supporting documents to substantiate the claim that the new receipts could not have occurred without incurring corresponding expenses in the normal course of business. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the allegation of the assessee not being allowed cross-examination of Shri Sandeep Runwal was baseless as the assessee never requested it. The Tribunal found that the statement of Shri Sandeep Runwal, detailing cash received on sale of flats, specifically listed the assessee's transaction for Flat No. 501 at Runwal Elegante with a cash receipt of ₹.82,13,261/-, which was not an estimate.
The Tribunal clarified that the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. It also deleted the disallowance of interest on capital work-in-progress, stating that investment in assets improved service quality but did not extend the business geographically. The disallowance for roaming charges was also deleted, following a precedent that such payments do not fall under TDS provisions.
The Tribunal clarified that the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal clarified that the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently been allotted two appeal numbers for the same appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish relevant documents and make proper compliance, considering the additional evidence submitted.
The Tribunal clarified that the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made submissions with documentary evidence before the AO. However, due to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, partly due to issues with hearing notices and the transition to a faceless regime, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence from the AO to prove that the transactions were bogus or that "VAS Infrastructure Limited" was a penny stock. The Tribunal also referenced previous decisions of co-ordinate benches where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be deleted, following earlier precedents. Regarding the disallowance of foreseeable losses, the Tribunal noted conflicting decisions and the pendency of an appeal before the High Court, remanding the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC for delayed deposit is correct, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The delayed deposit of employee contributions does not qualify for deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with any other co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). It also directed deletion of interest charged under Section 234A due to extended return filing dates.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be sustained at 3% GP rate over and above what was already shown by the assessee, considering the purchases were tainted. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions from its own coordinate benches regarding the allowability of foreseeable losses and Section 80-IA deductions. It acknowledged that the Revenue has appealed some of these decisions to the High Court.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits. Considering the prima-facie case presented, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the lower TDS certificates issued under Section 197 are valid for the principal officer of the company, irrespective of changes in TAN. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at the rates specified in these certificates.
The Tribunal held that since the revisional order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was quashed by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act cannot survive. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the lower TDS certificates issued under Section 197 are valid for the principal officer of the company, irrespective of changes in TAN. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at the rates specified in these certificates.
The Tribunal held that the lower TDS certificates issued under Section 197 are valid for the principal officer of the company, irrespective of changes in TAN. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at the rates specified in these certificates.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee claimed the deposits were agricultural income, they failed to establish the source. However, considering the historical deposit trend, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 4 Lacs as genuine and sustained the balance addition.
The Tribunal found that crucial details like expense ledgers and challans were not presented, making it inappropriate to decide based on partial information. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Jurisdictional AO for verification.
The tribunal confirmed that the appeal had already been decided by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the present appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act and Sections 69/69B are contrasting, with the former being a deeming fiction and the latter evidence-based. The AO cannot estimate unaccounted investment under Section 69B without evidence of actual expenditure beyond recorded amounts.
The Tribunal held that the additional income offered was due to a bona fide and reasonable inadvertent mistake, not an intention to conceal income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than ₹.50 Lakhs, which falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, following CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024, the appeal needs to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order regarding bogus purchases and cash sales was not perverse and dismissed the Revenue's grounds on these issues. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding telescoping of additions for cash sales and stock difference.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that incorrect email communication led to their inability to respond. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that sufficient cause for delay should be interpreted with a view to do even-handed justice. The Tribunal also referred to its previous decisions and allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on merit, citing that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investment in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal acknowledged that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) and that the additional evidences were not considered. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the additional evidences and other documents and make an appropriate decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court and CBDT had extended the limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The delay in filing the appeal fell within this extended period. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal due to delay was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that incorrect email communication led to their inability to respond. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to credits received by the assessee, not loans advanced. Since the amounts were loans advanced by the assessee and had already been taxed in the hands of the recipients, the addition in the hands of the assessee was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance and lack of appearance by the assessee. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of various reasons for non-appearance, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that none appeared on behalf of the appellant (assessee) during the hearing. After perusing the order of the JCIT(A) and hearing the Ld. DR, the Tribunal observed that the assessee, in written submissions before the JCIT(A), claimed that the return was filed by the due date for both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. The disallowance of brought forward losses was made by the CPC while processing the return. The Tribunal found it unclear from the grounds of appeal and the appellate order whether the return along with audited accounts for AY 2017-18 was filed by the due date. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. JCIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the facts and consider the claim of brought forward losses, if allowable as per law, after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the cross-objection first. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in earlier assessment years, including A.Y. 2016-17. The Tribunal perused the order for A.Y. 2016-17, which upheld the assessee's working of disallowance. The assessee had excluded expenditures not related to earning exempt income and calculated indirect expenditure in proportion to dividend income. The Coordinate Bench found that if investments not yielding exempt income were excluded, the disallowance under Rule 8D would be less than what the assessee offered. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned disallowance. Consequently, the revenue's appeal became otiose.
The Tribunal noted that Section 68 applies to cash credits actually received and the assessee's contention of not taking a specific loan needs verification with books of accounts and bank statements. Accordingly, the issue of addition of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 15.00 lakhs for AY 2013-14 was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The issue of interest disallowance for AY 2013-14 was also restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80IA on enhanced business income. This was based on consistent past precedents and the fact that the additions related to business activity.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for keeping cash at home due to his NRI status is plausible, the cash flow statements presented require verification against bank statements. Therefore, the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal noted that Section 68 applies to cash credits actually received and the assessee's contention of not taking a specific loan needs verification with books of accounts and bank statements. Accordingly, the issue of addition of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 15.00 lakhs for AY 2013-14 was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The issue of interest disallowance for AY 2013-14 was also restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the short-term capital loss, finding it to be artificially created to offset capital gains from ESOPs. The Tribunal noted the abnormal price rise and fall of the penny stock and the timing of transactions, corroborating the AO's findings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's efforts to rectify the demand and the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the material on record. The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's efforts to rectify the demand and the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the material on record. The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that a defective notice, specifically one where irrelevant clauses in a pre-printed proforma are not struck off, renders the penalty proceedings void. The notice must clearly inform the assessee of the specific charges. Following the precedent of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the court ruled that such an omnibus notice suffers from vagueness and vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the basis of the addition was a pen drive recovered from an employee, and the information therein was not independently verified or corroborated. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision concerning the same pen drive where it was found that the data was prepared on the employee's imagination and not related to the assessee.