Loading ITAT cases…
744 orders · Page 15 of 15
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had adjudicated a similar issue in favor of the assessee, attributing the TDS credit shortfall to the late filing of TDS returns by customers. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the full TDS credit of Rs. 220,61,47,656/-. Therefore, following the previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act. Income Tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of tax dues but no authority to initiate recovery during a moratorium. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merit simply due to the liquidation process.
The Tribunal decided that income from housing finance for residential purposes for less than 5 years and income from temporary deployment of funds in treasury operations are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii). However, income from housing finance for non-residential purposes is not eligible. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the eligible profit.
The Tribunal opined that the assessee did not cause any default and the issue was due to technical glitches. The CIT(E) had not specified any other reason for rejection beyond the applicant filing under the wrong clause of the proviso. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant necessary approval on a fresh application.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 37,75,000/- was the opening balance in the assessee's flexi-FD account and not a fresh credit during the year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent withdrawal of recognition of the payee institutions does not bar the assessee from claiming deduction for donations made when the institutions were approved. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had adjudicated a similar issue in favor of the assessee, attributing the TDS credit shortfall to the late filing of TDS returns by customers. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the full TDS credit of Rs. 220,61,47,656/-. Therefore, following the previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided a separate audited profitability statement and Form 10CCB, the AO's action of applying the global net profit ratio was incorrect. The net profit ratio of the unit should be accepted as reasonable.
The Tribunal observed that the issues involved were both legal and factual. Considering that the Ld CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case properly. The order of the Ld CIT(A) was set aside, and all issues were restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in a hasty manner without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, which violates the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in default of the assessee's appearance. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision as per Section 250(6) of the Act. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the first appellate authority, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the CIT(A) for expeditious disposal, advising against seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merit of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report, potentially violating Rule 46A, and restored the issue of compensation for cancelled flats to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed as the AO failed to record dissatisfaction, adhering to Section 14A(2). The derivatives trading issue was also restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A related to partnership profits was partly tenable, reversing the CIT(A)'s deletion. However, it upheld that such disallowance should not be added to book profit for MAT computation under Section 115JB, following precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. The requirement to pay advance tax does not arise in reassessment proceedings. Further, the assessee's submission that the investment was made by her husband, with her name included for security, warranted factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without properly considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days, finding a reasonable cause. The case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for deciding on merit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the Assessing Officer did not dispute the corresponding sales, only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal found the estimation of 12.5% gross profit by the CIT(A) to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that merely quoting a wrong provision of law should not bar a quasi-judicial authority from considering an application if it has jurisdiction. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice and substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemptions) to decide the application afresh, granting the appellant an opportunity to correct the relevant section and provide any required information.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a separate profit and loss account for the Belur unit, duly certified in Form 10CCB, the AO's action of applying the global net profit ratio was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on a Delhi High Court decision and allowed the deduction based on the unit's reported net profit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It held that the AO erred in expanding the scope of limited scrutiny (CASS) beyond the two specified reasons without converting it to full scrutiny, thus deleting the addition for unsecured loans and sundry creditors. The Tribunal also deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of commission expenses and reduced other ad-hoc disallowances on business expenses to 10% for genuinely unverifiable items.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous was justified because the underlying revisionary order, which formed the basis of the assessment order, had been quashed. Consequently, the consequential assessment order did not survive in the eyes of the law. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of a withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous was justified because the underlying revisionary order, which formed the basis of the assessment order, had been quashed. Consequently, the consequential assessment order did not survive in the eyes of the law. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of a withdrawal application.
The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was in limine without proper service of notice and opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits due to the assessee's non-appearance, despite multiple notices. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case and evidence. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, which clarifies that for assessment years prior to 2017-18, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under section 115BBE, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of the business loss against the income determined by him.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition based on circumstantial evidence and conjectures, without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts or conducting any survey. The VAT department had also accepted the assessee's sales, and the assessee had provided supporting documents for purchases and sales.
The Tribunal held that credit for taxes paid should be allowed to the tax-payer. They directed the AO to allow the credit of tax paid after verification, despite the omission in the original return.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal was considered. Since the demand has been paid and the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal, the tribunal noted the contents of the application.
The Tribunal held that three specific companies (ICRA, Cyber, and ITIL) were functionally similar to the assessee and should be included as comparables. Conversely, three other companies (MOIAPL, LCAPL, and MOEPAPL) were deemed not comparable and should be excluded.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the consequent Assessing Officer's order were indeed barred by limitation. Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks. The Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was distinguished as not being on the specific issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions, despite the assessee claiming non-representation was due to circumstances beyond its control. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to provide another opportunity.
The assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal was accepted, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The primary issues revolved around the assessee being considered an 'assessee in default' and the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks. The Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was distinguished as not being on the specific issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be justified. It noted that under Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on merit even if the assessee fails to appear. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are indeed cooperative societies. It was further held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on its own earlier decision on identical facts.
The Tribunal found that the FAA dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the learned CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that despite four notices being issued by the CIT(A), they were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to serve notice on the correct email address, thereby affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that even if the DVO reference was made in the case of the wife, it should be considered for the common property. The AO should have adopted the DVO report after confronting it to the assessee. Thus, the issue was restored to the file of the AO.
The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 1.97% of the total turnover, relying on a previous Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case, and partly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal, considering the facts and judicial precedents, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the income received from the JDA is to be treated as capital gains and not business income. The assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54EC of the Act.
The Tribunal largely ruled in favor of the assessee on several issues, restricting the disallowance under section 14A to the suo-moto amount and excluding it from book profits under section 115JB. It allowed deductions under section 80IA (including for CENVAT credit) and treated corporate advertisement as revenue expenditure, and lease equalization charges as allowable. Interest on electricity tax was held to be compensatory and deductible under section 37, not subject to section 43B. The TP adjustment for corporate guarantee fees was restricted to 0.5%. However, additional grounds by the assessee regarding Education Cess and DDT re-computation were dismissed as conceded, and issues concerning various subsidies as capital receipts were remanded to the AO for de-novo examination. The Revenue's appeals on most points were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of interest cannot be decided unless the quantum addition for the unsecured loans is first decided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the quantum addition first and then the allowability of interest.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A and its addition to book profits (Assessee's Grounds 1 & 2), the CIT(A) allowed the suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 5,99,75,725 but confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 22,39,05,880 towards indirect expenses. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had erroneously considered the entire breakup of indirect expenses instead of proportionate ones. For the Revenue's Ground 9 concerning the sale of certified emission receipts, the Tribunal dismissed the ground, following a coordinate bench decision which relied on High Court judgments holding such receipts as capital in nature. Similarly, for the Revenue's Ground 10 regarding interest subsidy from TUF, the Tribunal dismissed the ground, following a coordinate bench decision that held TUF subsidy as capital in nature. For Revenue's Grounds 11 & 12 concerning the ALP of guarantee fees, the Tribunal dismissed these grounds, relying on the jurisdictional High Court decision in Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.