Loading ITAT cases…
522 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions dated 20.12.2018. Therefore, the matter is to be restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society was exclusively engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, distinguishing it from cases where other business activities were involved. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the enhanced monetary limit as per the CBDT circular. Regarding the cross-objection, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), finding it to be valid and applicable to the facts of the case, particularly concerning the difference between the purchase price and market value of the property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society was exclusively engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, distinguishing it from cases where other business activities were involved. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because it was initiated for verification purposes, which is not a valid reason for reassessment according to various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Furthermore, the addition on merits was not substantiated by corroborative evidence, as it solely relied on a retracted statement.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were not in conformity with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society was exclusively engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, distinguishing it from cases where other business activities were involved. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was admissible.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricts investment in a new house but not the number of houses sold. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2014, also relates to investment, not the sale of houses. The Tribunal followed precedent from the Bombay High Court and its own Coordinate Bench.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were not in conformity with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were not in conformity with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that for grounds 1 & 2 concerning unexplained expenditure and cash credits, the matter should be remitted back to the AO for further verification. For ground 3 concerning the sundry creditor, the Tribunal noted that the issue of identity was previously decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench, and therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for purchases, holding that the assessee provided sufficient corroborative documentary evidence, including mapping to export sales and bank realization certificates. The issue of disallowance for interest expenditure was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of Form 15G/H.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were not in conformity with the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the appellant's status as a small employee with limited knowledge of tax laws and his reliance on an IT practitioner. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty, noting that the appellant rectified the mistake promptly and was not a habitual offender.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of shares cannot be considered unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the transactions were through the stock exchange, banking channels, and supported by documentation. The AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through the slump sale is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of the case. For certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the interest cost was correctly capitalized as part of WIP and not an unexplained expenditure, considering it a revenue-neutral transaction. Regarding the sales issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that recognizing revenue on project completion and handover (when risk and rewards transfer) is appropriate, and the registration date alone does not determine taxability, thus avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the purchases and sales, and the GP rate on these specific transactions (7.37%) was higher than the overall GP rate (7.02%). The Tribunal also noted that the export sales were not disputed. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in PCIT vs. Mohammed Haji Adam and Co., the Tribunal held that additions should be limited to bringing the GP rate on purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on goodwill/intangible assets acquired through slump sale is common across various assessment years. For AY 2018-19, an issue regarding miles difference was remitted to the AO. For AY 2021-22, additional grounds related to 'remeasurement of miles' and 'reversal of provision for rebranding' were admitted and remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that conference registration charges paid by the pharmaceutical company on behalf of doctors are to be treated as 'freebies' and are not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories was considered binding.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delay to enable substantial justice. The assessee's affidavit, detailing reasons for the delay including unfamiliarity with e-proceedings and late awareness of the demand, was not contradicted by the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and set it aside. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to dispose of the appeal on merits after considering the material on record. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the order. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the depreciation claim or the validity of the Section 143(1) adjustment, as these were not reached by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Based on the withdrawal letter, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) of the Act was not applicable in this case as the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal at the admission stage.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex parte. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient justification for his failure to present his case before the lower authorities, specifically citing the Covid-19 infection and quarantine. The Tribunal referred to Section 250(2)(a) of the Act, which grants the appellant the right to be heard. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice required the assessee to be given an effective opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was to present its case without delay when called upon. The issue regarding the addition under section 56(2)(x) and the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D were implicitly left undecided as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal heard both the assessee and the revenue. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's application and allowed the withdrawal.
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that the new provisions of Section 149(1)(b) apply retrospectively. It was held that reassessment notices can only be issued if the escaped income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs, and if it is less, such notices, even if issued under the old regime's time limit, must be dropped.
The Tribunal held that the loan was from a director, so establishing identity was not an issue. The ledger account showing the opening balance of Rs. 72,000/-, receipt of Rs. 1,25,000/-, repayment of Rs. 1,87,000/-, and a closing balance of Rs. 10,000/- was considered sufficient. The Tribunal noted all transactions were through banking channels.
The Assessing Officer raised no objection to the withdrawal application. The Tribunal considered the application and allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the submission by the Departmental Representative regarding the low tax effect and the applicability of the recent CBDT circular. Based on this, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO neither rejected the books of accounts nor specified the section under which the addition was made. The bills may be bogus but the purchases were genuine as sales were accepted. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal application. Considering the contents of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied merely on estimation basis, especially when no concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars is established. Reliance was placed on various High Court and ITAT decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that the refund granted should first be adjusted against the interest component, and the remaining balance against the principal/tax component. Any shortfall thereafter should be considered for computing further interest payable to the assessee under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that conference registration charges paid by the pharmaceutical company on behalf of doctors are to be treated as 'freebies' and are not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories was considered binding.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had made specific inquiries and considered the assessee's detailed replies and documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's view, allowing the exemption, was a plausible view on the facts and therefore, the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted specific inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided detailed replies and justifications for the claimed exemption under Section 44BB and the India-Singapore DTAA. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that mere inadequacy of inquiry, where due diligence was shown by the AO and specific replies received, is not a valid ground to invoke Section 263.
The Tribunal held that conference registration charges paid by the pharmaceutical company on behalf of doctors are to be treated as 'freebies' and are not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories was considered binding.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that certain evidence could not be gathered during the appellate proceedings, but the assessee is now willing to produce them. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for examination and verification of the additional evidence.
The Tribunal decided the issues on an issue-wise basis. Regarding survey fees paid to doctors, the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed these expenses, viewing them as commission payments in violation of MCI guidelines and thus not deductible under Section 37(1) read with Explanation 1, relying on CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 and the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance. The Tribunal's decision on this specific issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this disallowance. Regarding conference registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance. It reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories P Ltd and the Tribunal's decision in Pfizer Ltd. The Tribunal found that conference registration charges, along with travel and stay, constitute a package of 'freebies' as observed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal stated that when an assessee pays for expenses that would otherwise be borne by the doctor, such payments are 'freebies'. The assessee's voluntary disallowance of travel and stay expenses further indicated that conference registration expenses were paid on behalf of the doctors. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance. The operative direction was that all appeals of the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that conference registration charges paid by the pharmaceutical company on behalf of doctors are to be treated as 'freebies' and are not allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories was considered binding.