Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 8 of 12
The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and is issuing a corrigendum to correct the Assessment Years. The corrected Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19.
The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and is issuing a corrigendum to correct the Assessment Years. The corrected Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made, following numerous High Court judgments. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, was clarified to be effective from 01.04.2022 and not retrospective.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify the error. It held that the Assessment Years mentioned in the cause title of its original order dated 28/07/2023 should be correctly read as 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. All other contents of the said Tribunal order remain unamended and stand as originally stated.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned, as per various High Court judgments. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of ESOP expenses additions, following High Court decisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and is issuing a corrigendum to correct the Assessment Years. The corrected Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 11,90,200 as undisclosed brokerage income. It found that the assessee's admission during the survey, coupled with the seized material, supported the addition. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for ad hoc expenses as no evidence was provided.
The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and is issuing a corrigendum to correct the Assessment Years. The corrected Assessment Years are 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19.
Considering the facts and the request for withdrawal, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as withdrawn and dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) who passed the order dated 23.04.2021 was not within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the ITAT Mumbai Bench is not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with the liberty to file the same before the ITAT Pune Bench. The Tribunal directed that the file/documents be handed over to the assessee for presenting them before the ITAT, Pune Bench. The issue regarding the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not decided on merits due to the jurisdictional issue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the disallowance of interest expenses did not result in any change in the returned income, and there was no concealment or misreporting of income. The facts did not fall under the clauses for misreported income as per Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction of interest payments. Regarding the Keyman Insurance Policy, the Tribunal noted that after assignment, it converts into an ordinary policy and the maturity benefit is exempt under Section 10(10D) of the Act. The Tribunal followed binding precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed Form No. 10B along with the return of income on November 5, 2022. It also referred to CBDT Circular No. 20/2022 which extended the due date for filing the return of income and Form No. 10B for AY 2022-23 to November 7, 2022. Therefore, the assessee's filing was within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of notices under section 142(1) and the show cause notice are curable irregularities, not illegality. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the disallowance of interest expenses did not result in any change in the returned income, and there was no concealment or misreporting of income. The facts did not fall under the clauses for misreported income as per Section 270A.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case with evidence and information. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs.53,42,414/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appeals before the ITAT by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if it falls under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made concerning deposits from Alka Joshi was not justified as it was already deleted by the CIT(A) in a prior round of litigation and did not arise from the remand order. The addition concerning sundry deposits was upheld because the assessee could not justify holding the money as the mortgagor had expired and the money was not returned to the legal heirs. The addition concerning shop deposits was dismissed due to lack of evidence and confirmation from the mortgagee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined both issues during the original assessment proceedings, finding the share capital increase expenses to be revenue in nature, consistent with previous decisions. The deduction claimed u/s 35ABB was also found to have been examined and allowed by the AO. Since the AO had taken a plausible view after due examination, the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, and thus the PCIT's order u/s 263 was not justified and was quashed.
The Assessing Officer reopened the case and added the difference of Rs. 92,12,500 to the total income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the proceedings were invalid due to an invalid sanction obtained under section 151(ii) instead of section 151(i) for assessment years falling beyond three years.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal allowed a deduction of Rs. 54,00,000/- under Section 36(1)(viii). For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the disallowance of Rs. 25,01,789/-.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in not considering the assessee's response and submissions, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the pendency of rectification applications and a bonafide belief that the issue would be resolved. On merits, the Tribunal found no basis to deny the complete deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the assessee is a co-operative credit society.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. The assessee's counsel explained that the email used for communication was inactive. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, granting three more opportunities to the assessee and directing them to ensure proper communication.
The original order incorrectly cited the appeal number as ITA No.1135/Mum/2023. The Tribunal held that the correct appeal number is ITA No.1135/Mum/2018.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the reasons recorded did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, which is a mandatory condition for reopening after 4 years when an assessment under section 143(3) has been made. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 10,50,00,000/- addition, noting that the equity shares were a conversion of FCDs from previous years, not a fresh cash credit, rendering Section 68 inapplicable. It also held that Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable for A.Y. 2011-12 as it applies prospectively from A.Y. 2013-14. Regarding guest house expenses, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, upholding the 10% ad-hoc disallowance restricted by CIT(A) as the assessee did not challenge it and rent expenses were verifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the circumstances of the deposit. The documentary evidence, including bank statements and policy details, supported the assessee's claim regarding the source of funds. The AO's conclusion that the demonetised currency was accepted after the specified date was based on presumptions without supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act on account of capital introduced by the partners in the assessee firm was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements, including the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court's decision in PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (which was cited by the CIT(A)), and other High Court decisions like Nova Medicare vs. ITO and CIT vs. Anurag Rice Mills. These decisions established that the inquiry regarding the source of funds for partners' contributions can at most be conducted against the individual partners, and it is impermissible for the partnership firm itself to be required to explain the source of the partners' income. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in examining the source of income of the partners in respect of the capital introduction into the assessee firm. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished bank statements and income tax returns of the partners during assessment proceedings, and the details of capital introduction and withdrawal were available. The Tribunal also observed that the AO's request for ledger accounts from other firms and bank statements from those firms was an attempt to ascertain the 'source of the source,' which was not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19 as the relevant proviso to section 68 was introduced only from 01.04.2023. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that the assessee had not claimed any Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) but incurred short-term capital losses. The assessee had provided contract notes and broker statements supporting the transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO did not examine the assessee's submissions and that the addition was based on the total trade value rather than the loss incurred.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a bona fide reason and condoned it. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had submitted the relevant form. Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance with hearing notices, and the addition made by the AO was sustained. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on merit and restored the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A. Since the details were not clear, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-computation. The Tribunal also followed a Special Bench ruling that no adjustment for Section 14A disallowance is permissible for computation of book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not issued any notice of hearing and decided the issue based solely on the available record. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, as the reasons for reopening were merely a reproduction of information received from another authority. The addition under Section 68 was also questioned due to lack of specific show cause notice and incorrect application of law.
The Tribunal held that for shares held as stock-in-trade, the primary purpose is trading for profit, and any dividend earned is incidental. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A may not be applicable if there is no direct causal connection between the expenditure and the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable to shares held as stock-in-trade, as the primary purpose is trading for profit, not earning dividend income. The expenditure incurred is for business purposes.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal allowed a deduction of Rs. 54,00,000/- under Section 36(1)(viii). For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the disallowance of Rs. 25,01,789/-.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the Addl./Joint CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that a proper opportunity of hearing be provided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 15% on account of accommodation entries, finding no justification for a 100% disallowance. It also agreed with the CIT(A) in deleting additions under Section 14A, as the assessee had used interest-free funds for investments and suo moto disallowed a sufficient amount.
The ITAT had previously quashed the revision order u/s 263. The CIT(A) failed to consider this material fact and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the original order u/s 263, on which the assessment was based, had already been set aside by the ITAT.
The Tribunal found that the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 is applicable as the tax demand is below Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect. The Revenue is granted liberty to seek recall if subsequent findings bring the issue under the circular's exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a public charitable trust established on September 4, 2000, with objects including relief for the poor, education, medical relief, and advancement of objects of general public utility. It had been granted provisional registration under Section 80G(5) for the period up to AY 2024-25. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application in Form 10AB, stating it was filed for renewal under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) and not for regularization of provisional approval, while also granting liberty to file a revised application. Crucially, the Tribunal found it was not evident that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee by the CIT(E) before rejecting the application. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity to file a revised application under the correct provision of law and to consider it on merits after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the show cause notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify the limb of Section 270A under which the penalty was proposed. The penalty was levied for both 'under reporting' and 'misreporting' of income, but the notice only mentioned 'under reporting'.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The assessee's delay in filing the appeal was attributed to pursuing a rectification process and the death of its CA. The Tribunal found these reasons justifiable and decided to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid because the AO's reasons were based on a misunderstanding of the original assessment. The original assessment was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) where the unsecured loan details, including from M/s. TDPL, were already examined.
The Tribunal noted that the enabling provision for levying late fee under Section 234E came into effect on June 1, 2015. Following the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the Apex Court, it was held that the levy of late fee for the period prior to June 1, 2015, was unsustainable.