Loading ITAT cases…
412 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerning the disallowance of deferred tax asset for book profit computation under Section 115JB was allowed. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2021-22 on similar issues.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unaccounted cash sales, finding the AO's grounds to be based on surmises and conjectures. No material was presented to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings on this issue.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unaccounted cash sales, finding the AO's grounds to be based on surmises and conjectures. No material was presented to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings on this issue.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unaccounted cash sales, finding the AO's grounds to be based on surmises and conjectures. No material was presented to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings on this issue.
The tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and there was a discrepancy in email addresses. Therefore, the tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that MSBTE qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and is therefore immune from taxation. The Tribunal found no substantial change in MSBTE's activities from earlier years for which exemption was granted.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unaccounted cash sales, finding the AO's grounds to be based on surmises and conjectures. No material was presented to controvert the CIT(A)'s factual findings on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerning the disallowance of deferred tax asset for book profit computation under Section 115JB was allowed. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2018-19, 2020-21, and 2021-22 on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains were rightly deleted as the property was a contribution to the partnership firm and the profits were already taxed in the firm's hands. Regarding TDR, it was held that it does not represent 'real income' in the current year, and thus section 69A was not applicable, especially since the profits from utilizing the additional FSI were already offered by the partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches and High Courts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of both appeals. The primary reason for this decision was the applications filed by the assessee on 04.09.2024, seeking to withdraw ITA No. 915/Mum/2024 (AY 2013-14) and ITA No. 916/Mum/2024 (AY 2014-15). The Ld. DR (Departmental Representative) for the revenue did not raise any objection to these withdrawal applications. The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's contentions regarding the withdrawal. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the substantive grounds of appeal as they were withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal followed a previous order of a coordinate bench, which had held that the loans and share capital raised by the assessee were genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and enhanced by the CIT(A) were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present objections to the DVO's report, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh adjudication on the property's valuation.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of both appeals. The primary reason for this decision was the applications filed by the assessee on 04.09.2024, seeking to withdraw ITA No. 915/Mum/2024 (AY 2013-14) and ITA No. 916/Mum/2024 (AY 2014-15). The Ld. DR (Departmental Representative) for the revenue did not raise any objection to these withdrawal applications. The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's contentions regarding the withdrawal. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the substantive grounds of appeal as they were withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Shri Narpat H. Mehta v/s ITO (ITA No. 5156/Mum./2018) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT v/s Mohammad Haji Adam (ITA No. 1004 of 2016), set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO with a direction to restrict the addition for bogus purchases. The addition is to be made by bringing the gross profit rate on such bogus purchases to the same rate as that of other genuine purchases. If the gross profit rate on bogus purchases is higher than genuine purchases and already offered to tax, no further addition shall be made. The assessee is to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised in both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue regarding interest under Sections 234A/234B/234C/234D and cessation of liability under Section 41(1) were not explicitly decided in the operative part of the order, but the overall allowance for statistical purposes implies these were also considered within the scope of the set-aside.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA(1), which allows a 5% tolerance between stamp duty value and sale consideration, is curative and retrospective. Since the difference was less than 5% of the sale consideration, Section 43CA was not applicable.
The Tribunal observed that the prescribed form for filing the appeal was not verified and signed. Consequently, the appeal was considered non-maintainable and was rejected. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if advised, after due verification and signing of the form.
The tribunal held that the activity of organizing the 'Goa Fest' is not in the nature of business and the surplus generated is exempt under Section 11. Similarly, bank interest earned was also held to be exempt based on previous years' decisions. The issue regarding an advance to BARCI was remitted to the AO for verification and decision. An additional ground regarding carry forward of deficit was directed to be examined by the AO.
The tribunal held that the activity of organizing the 'Goa Fest' is not in the nature of business and the surplus generated is exempt under Section 11. Similarly, bank interest earned was also held to be exempt based on previous years' decisions. The issue regarding an advance to BARCI was remitted to the AO for verification and decision. An additional ground regarding carry forward of deficit was directed to be examined by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds 1 to 3 for statistical purposes, with a rider that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain investments not fetching exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground 4 regarding income mismatch, following previous consistent decisions in favour of the assessee. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.
The Tribunal followed a previous order of a coordinate bench, which had held that the loans and share capital raised by the assessee were genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and enhanced by the CIT(A) were not sustained.
The tribunal held that the activity of organizing the 'Goa Fest' is not in the nature of business and the surplus generated is exempt under Section 11. Similarly, bank interest earned was also held to be exempt based on previous years' decisions. The issue regarding an advance to BARCI was remitted to the AO for verification and decision. An additional ground regarding carry forward of deficit was directed to be examined by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that decisions relied upon by the appellant were for periods prior to the amended provisions of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the power to condone delay in filing Form 10B (audit report) for AY 2018-19 and subsequent years is vested with the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(E)) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, not the Appellate Authorities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that share application money is a capital account transaction and falls outside the purview of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, transfer pricing adjustments cannot be made on such transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely on grounds of non-prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer had already considered the accommodation entry transactions while passing the order under Section 153A. Therefore, initiating proceedings under Section 153C for the difference amount was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This failure constitutes a jurisdictional error, making the entire assessment order void. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the identified bogus parties, the Revenue also did not doubt the usage of materials for infrastructure development. Therefore, it was deemed a case of bogus bills arranged from fake entities and actual materials purchased elsewhere at a lower cost.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The reasons provided, including issues with the income tax portal, non-receipt of physical notices, and the circumstances surrounding the late awareness of the AO's order, were considered valid. The Tribunal found that the learned CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after dismissing it solely on the ground of delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for consideration on merits after condoning the delay. The Tribunal directed the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) on all scheduled hearing dates. The other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at this stage as the matter was being remanded. The ratio decidendi is that when a sufficient cause for delay is demonstrated, the appellate authority should condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits, rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issues.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. However, as the assessee did not make compliance before the CIT(A) and the merits of the case were not argued, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was repeatedly provided opportunities for hearing but failed to appear and did not submit required documents. Therefore, the matter was disposed of ex-parte. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses due to the lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's application filed on 28/09/2023 was within the limitation period prescribed by the CBDT circular, which was 30/09/2023. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(E)'s finding on the issue of limitation was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the timely filing of the application was correct, as it was filed before 30/09/2023, fulfilling the condition of the CBDT circular. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A cooperative bank, despite the exclusion under Section 80P(4), still qualifies as a cooperative society for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal, following the judgments of the ITAT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in similar cases, held that the 'Transit Rent' paid to tenants is not to be considered as revenue receipt and is not liable to tax. Consequently, there is no requirement to deduct TDS on such payments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, including not receiving notices due to an incorrect address and lack of awareness, coupled with the revenue not filing a counter-affidavit, constituted a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal found that the purposes for accumulation stated in Form No. 10 were in line with the Trust's main objects and not vague. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had suo moto added back a portion of the depreciation claim, treating it as application of funds, which addressed the AO's concern about double deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was a duplicate of an appeal already heard by the Bench. Therefore, it was considered infructuous as it was filed for the second time.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on an investigation report without conducting independent inquiries or showing that the assessee was part of any price rigging syndicate. The transactions were conducted on the stock exchange, with proper documentation and banking channels, thus confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The AO treated the entire purchases as bogus, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal, following a High Court decision in a similar case, directed the AO to restrict the addition to the GP rate of the assessee after verification.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to prosecute the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner despite opportunities. However, considering the circumstances and the need for substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and non-appearance. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's rejection of the application was not maintainable as it ignored the CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, which extended the due date for filing Form 10AB. The delay of 26 days should have been condoned based on the circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on an investigation report without conducting independent inquiries or showing that the assessee was part of any price rigging syndicate. The transactions were conducted on the stock exchange, with proper documentation and banking channels, thus confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to this request. The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions to be cogent and accepted the request.
The corrigendum rectifies two specific errors in the original order. Firstly, it clarifies that the issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) and not the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Secondly, it states that the addresses of the appellant and the AO have been corrected in the cause title as per the revised Form No. 36.
The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and non-response to multiple notices. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide mandatory attachments like the order under dispute and notice of demand, and also did not respond to any of the notices.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and that the assessee was not properly represented due to communication issues. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause from responding to notices. The Ld.CIT(A) was required to pass an order on merit but failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.