Loading ITAT cases…
657 orders · Page 13 of 14
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings to be invalid.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions, additional evidences, and the AO's remand report. The AO's remand report, in fact, accepted the assessee's contention for indexed cost of acquisition. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merits. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case as a matter of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and established legal precedents. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's affidavit and established legal precedents. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the AO for de novo consideration.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower appellate authority and had not received adequate notice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the file of the lower appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and clarified that paragraph 9 of the ITAT order dated 06.12.2023 should be considered for ground no. 1. For ground no. 4, it was held that Section 244A(1A) would apply from 01.06.2016 to the date of actual refund receipt.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and clarified that paragraph 9 of the ITAT order dated 06.12.2023 should be considered for ground no. 1. For ground no. 4, it was held that Section 244A(1A) would apply from 01.06.2016 to the date of actual refund receipt.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and clarified that paragraph 9 of the ITAT order dated 06.12.2023 should be considered for ground no. 1. For ground no. 4, it was held that Section 244A(1A) would apply from 01.06.2016 to the date of actual refund receipt.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and clarified that paragraph 9 of the ITAT order dated 06.12.2023 should be considered for ground no. 1. For ground no. 4, it was held that Section 244A(1A) would apply from 01.06.2016 to the date of actual refund receipt.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and clarified that paragraph 9 of the ITAT order dated 06.12.2023 should be considered for ground no. 1. For ground no. 4, it was held that Section 244A(1A) would apply from 01.06.2016 to the date of actual refund receipt.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and that the assessee was now duly represented and wished to pursue the litigation. The Tribunal found it fit to grant the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal noted that while Section 80P(4) excludes co-operative banks from deduction, a co-operative bank is still a co-operative society, and the interest earned by a co-operative society from such investments should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the trust, being a trustee for the benefit of a person, qualifies as a representative assessee under Section 160(1)(iv). Therefore, it is liable to be taxed in the same manner and to the same extent as its beneficiary, as per Section 161(1).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction by providing loan confirmations and bank statements. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any evidence to controvert the assessee's submissions or challenge the veracity of the documents. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's reasoning to be based on conjecture and surmise, and that no independent investigation was conducted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee argued that non-compliance with notices was due to inadvertence and that the assessment order itself was passed without proper opportunity. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) order was passed without considering the merits.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, holding that only the profit element should be assessed when sales are matched, citing judicial precedents. The Tribunal further modified the CIT(A)'s order, reducing the estimated profit rate from 10% to 2.5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee's average gross profit and rates applied by other Tribunal benches for similar businesses.
Following a decision by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(v) of the Act was not applicable for the impugned Assessment Year 2007-08. This was because the amendment concerning immovable property under this section came into effect later (w.e.f. 01.10.2009) and did not have retrospective application. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P could not be denied on the ground of late filing as the return was submitted within the extended due date. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., it clarified that Section 80P(4) is applicable only to co-operative societies holding an RBI banking license. Since the assessee does not possess such a license, the provisions of Section 80P(4) do not apply, making the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from a co-operative bank allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the merit of the case, and the assessee was unable to submit supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies regarding the existence of M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. at the time of the agreement and the recipient company's failure to file a Return of Income despite receiving a substantial commission. Due to insufficient proof of services rendered and the non-existence of the company on the agreement date, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was not properly considered by the Ld.CIT(E) under section 12AB of the Act. The Tribunal directed the designated authority to reconsider the application de novo.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's report had errors, including incorrect measurement and failure to fully consider the property's litigious status and locational disadvantages. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was not properly considered by the Ld.CIT(E) under section 12AB of the Act. The Tribunal directed the designated authority to reconsider the application de novo.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payments made by the assessee to stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis and not in the nature of commission. The interest paid on delayed payments to MSMEs was also not considered 'interest' for TDS purposes as it was linked to trading liabilities.
The Tribunal held that justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits, or at least called for an explanation from the assessee even if it was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found it fit to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file.
The CIT(A) held that an appeal under Section 246A is only maintainable for adjustments made to the assessment and not for the quantum of interest charged when no other adjustment was made. The CIT(A) relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment but the Tribunal found it not applicable. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had discharged its tax liability and the issue was the correctness of interest calculation under Sections 234A and 234B.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had discharged its tax liability. The primary issue was whether the interest charged under Section 234A by CPC Bengaluru was correctly calculated, as it appeared the CPC did not consider the taxes paid up to 31.10.2020. The assessee's computation sheet was found to be correct but was not considered by the CPC or the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since there was no contract (oral or written) between the assessee and the lorry owners, and payments for each lorry did not exceed the TDS threshold, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for freight and diesel/fuel expenses was unjustified. However, the 15% disallowance of truck repair and maintenance expenses, for which bills/vouchers were not produced, was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the assessee fulfilled the three ingredients of Section 68 by producing supporting documents, and the AO had not presented any contrary evidence even in the remand report.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the relevant grounds raised by the assessee and that the assessee had also filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was not acted upon. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the application and rectify the mistake apparent from record.
The Tribunal held that the JCIT(A) should promptly decide the rectification application and rectify any mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, both appeals were restored to the file of the JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and non-compliance. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee from the developer as hardship compensation, arising from a redevelopment agreement, is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of ITAT Mumbai.
The Tribunal held that the share of loss from LLP and partnership firms is not an expenditure relatable to exempt income and should not be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB. Given the existence of conflicting ITAT decisions on this issue, it was considered debatable, and thus the AO's adoption of one plausible view did not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial. Consequently, the PCIT's order passed under Section 263 was quashed.
The CIT(A) sustained the disallowances made by the AO. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the CIT(A) failed to consider submissions and rejected additional evidence due to COVID-19 lockdown.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's request for a corrigendum, acknowledging a typographical error in the previous order's operative para 13. The operative para 13 has been modified to reflect the correct decision.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's own case for multiple assessment years, as well as decisions from the Mumbai High Court, have consistently held that the assessee was not engaged in real estate development but acted as a consultant, earning commission. Amounts received before project completion were considered deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court had given divergent views on the issue. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., which states that when two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant claimed non-receipt of notices during the CIT(A) proceedings, hindering their opportunity to be heard. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the interest expenditure and capitalized amounts, examining the details provided by the assessee. The PCIT failed to provide material on record to show that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The CBDT circular allowed for deduction of unrecovered interest on NPA accounts, and judicial pronouncements supported this treatment.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, citing the assessee's non-compliance and failure to substantiate her claims despite several opportunities. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that she could substantiate her claim if given another opportunity and that the CIT(A) order was ex parte.
The Tribunal, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Indravadan Jain HUF, held that the share transaction was genuine and deleted the addition.