Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal held that prior to July 1, 2016, Form 3CL had no legal sanctity, and the date of approval is not a cut-off date for allowing scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB).
The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the record. The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly submitted that the department's appeal had become infructuous by virtue of Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to Rs. 60 lacs. It was submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below Rs. 60 lacs and therefore the appeal had become infructuous. The Learned AR for the assessee supported these submissions, stating that the appeal was not maintainable and had become infructuous. The Tribunal, in view of the enhanced monetary limit and the tax effect in this appeal being Rs. 59,91,683/-, dismissed the appeal filed by the department as infructuous. No finding was given on the substantive issue of the addition on account of employee insurance policy premium.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked discussion on merits, despite stating it was decided on merits. The CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte in violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the due date and that the assessee was not granted an opportunity of being heard before the rejection. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity for filing a revised application and to consider it on merits.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and judicial precedents, found that the AO had indeed made proper inquiries and applied his mind to the issues now questioned by the PCIT. It held that the conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met, as the AO's order was not found to be erroneous or infirm. Consequently, the PCIT's revisionary order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence for share transactions. Since the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination and there were no adverse findings against the assessee by SEBI, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and was unreasoned, violating the principles of natural justice. The opportunity for hearing provided was not effective as per the assessee's submission. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence for share transactions. Since the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination and there were no adverse findings against the assessee by SEBI, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal considered the statement of account from M/s. Kalpataru Enterprises, which showed payments totaling Rs. 35,70,422/- along with interest of Rs. 2,76,087/-, covering the disputed amount of Rs. 38,46,509/-. The source of Rs. 20,00,000/- was already accepted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the exclusion of income from foreign branches, stating that only tax credit or exemption is available as per tax treaties, not exclusion from total income. An additional ground related to bad debts was admitted and remanded to the AO for fresh examination, following previous orders.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats, when treated as stock-in-trade by a builder and developer, cannot be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. Any income derived from such stock should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the exclusion of foreign branch income from tax computation, stating that only tax credit or exemption is available as per DTAAs. An additional ground regarding bad debts was admitted and remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is prospective and cannot be applied to assessment years prior to 2008-09. It also noted that if a bank has sufficient own interest-free funds, no disallowance under Section 14A on account of interest can be made.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal considered that while no borrowed funds were used for investments, it is possible that employees/directors invested some time in making investment decisions. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance for administrative expenses related to earning exempt income is warranted.
The Tribunal held that the loss on forward contract cancellation is incidental to the business and allowable as a business loss, falling under an exempted category of speculative transactions. For the capital work in progress issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's working.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own funds were sufficient to cover its investments. Following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., the Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance. The suo moto disallowance of Rs. 14,25,000 was deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal noted that the order under appeal was passed without an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was observed that the appellant only submitted a 'Statement of Facts' and did not provide further documentary evidence or replies to hearing notices. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal. On merits, relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi, the Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A making it prospective from 01.06.2015 means late filing fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application stating that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals by the revenue. Based on this, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, including bank statements, demat account details, and contract notes. The AO's addition was based on an investigation report without independent inquiry or cross-examination.
The learned CIT(A), following prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case, deleted the AO's allocation of R&D expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the products developed in the R&D units were distinct from those manufactured in the eligible units, and therefore, the AO's basis for allocation was unwarranted. The Tribunal emphasized that pharmaceutical R&D involves a long development cycle, further discrediting the AO's assumption of direct nexus with current eligible unit production.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held that payments made to stock exchanges for regulatory violations are not on account of an offense or prohibited by law. Therefore, the invocation of Explanation to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act was not justified. The nature of the penalty of ₹1,12,984/- was also considered, which was levied for violations of rules and regulations.
The learned CIT(A), following prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case, deleted the AO's allocation of R&D expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the products developed in the R&D units were distinct from those manufactured in the eligible units, and therefore, the AO's basis for allocation was unwarranted. The Tribunal emphasized that pharmaceutical R&D involves a long development cycle, further discrediting the AO's assumption of direct nexus with current eligible unit production.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the impugned capital gains were sham transactions, relying on circumstantial evidence. The assessee had discharged her initial onus by producing evidence, and the AO did not sufficiently challenge it.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's action in setting aside the assessment order, agreeing that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry. However, the Tribunal modified the PCIT's direction on the quantum of disallowance, stating it should be calculated based on the interest cost incurred on funds utilized for granting interest-free funds to partners, and directed the AO to re-decide the issue afresh.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 66 days and the failure to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide clear documentation regarding the property sale and the explanation for cash deposits. However, considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the purchase and sale transactions were supported by documentary evidence and routed through banking channels. Consequently, the addition of estimated commission expenses was also deleted.
The Tribunal has decided to issue a corrigendum to rectify an inadvertent error in the previously passed order. The error pertains to the misstatement of the assessee's name.
The Tribunal held that investments yielding exempt income are to be considered for disallowance under Section 14A, and investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded. Regarding the penalty paid to NHB, the Tribunal held it to be allowable as business expenditure as it was incidental to the business and not an offense prohibited by law.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the time for compliance given by the CIT(A) was less than a week, which was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders were illegal and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transaction was not sham despite multiple allotments of the same flat. The AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the assessee's claim.
The tax effect in the present appeal was below the specified monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed, as per the CBDT circular.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction under section 80G for CSR expenditure. It ruled that while Explanation 2 to section 37(1) disallows CSR as business expenditure, it does not create a bar for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA (including 80G) if all other conditions are met. The Revenue's appeal challenging the allowance of the 80G deduction was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection regarding the legality of reopening became academic and was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding expenses for earning exempt income during the assessment proceedings. The AO had taken into consideration the assessee's submissions and decided not to make any disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found that the AO's view was a plausible one, and therefore, the PCIT could not substitute their own opinion under Section 263.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for treating the written-off amount as business expenditure and remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for verification. For the ad-hoc disallowance on expenses, the Tribunal restricted it to 10%.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Therefore, in accordance with Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17th September, 2024, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that revenue recognition for real estate projects under Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9 necessitates a legally enforceable 'Agreement for Sale' to transfer significant risks and rewards of ownership. It noted that provisional allotment letters do not fulfill this condition and that the assessee had already accounted for the balance revenue in subsequent years. The decision aligns with a previous coordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce necessary details before the AO and CIT(A). However, it was also observed that the assessee would not gain by not producing these documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give an opportunity to the assessee to present the details.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11(2) cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-electronic filing of Form 10, especially when it was filed physically before the due date and subsequently electronically. Reliance was placed on previous judgments of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the Assessee. However, considering that the quantum appeal for the same year was restored, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the penalty appeal afresh after considering the order in the quantum appeal, and to also decide the issue of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative credit society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on its business income from providing credit facilities to its members. Further, income earned by way of interest from other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Income from interest received from non-cooperative banks is also eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not ensuring that the hearing notice was effectively served on the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of any appeal proceeding.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee was not properly served with the order and thus not given an effective opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was deemed not reasoned and not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that Indian banks' rates adopted by the TPO were not accepted. It was found that Co-ordinate Benches consistently hold guarantee fees in the range of 0.25% to 0.50%. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the ALP adjustment to 0.5%.
The Tribunal found that the error in mentioning the share percentage was a human error and bona fide. The Tribunal also noted an inconsistency in the Assessing Officer's reasoning, where it was stated as a case of concealment of income but later mentioned as furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal, deleting the addition. The assessee had submitted sufficient details and documentation to establish the genuineness of the expenses. Furthermore, an affidavit clarified that the term 'corpus' was erroneously used, and it was indeed a general-purpose donation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that due to the approved resolution plan in the insolvency proceedings, all past liabilities were extinguished. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 153A was not barred by limitation as the definition of 'asset' is comprehensive. It also deleted the addition of interest paid on a loan that was accepted in earlier years and found that the Assessing Officer's inquiry into loans was insufficient.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the written submissions and paper books filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) recorded issuing notices, the assessee's affidavit indicated they had appeared and submitted documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity for personal hearing.