Loading ITAT cases…
541 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted relief based solely on transactions being routed through banking channels and repaid within the financial year. However, the assessee had not discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans by submitting necessary documents like confirmations from parties and ITRs of creditors. Therefore, the Tribunal was not in agreement with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition under Section 43CA. It found that the price was decided and payments were received as per the allotment letters issued prior to the insertion of Section 43CA, and the terms of allotment were included in the final sale deed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee argued that the second proviso to section 12A of the Act should allow the registration granted for AY 2021-22 to apply retrospectively to AY 2020-21, as assessment proceedings were pending. The Tribunal found this contention had not been raised before the lower authorities and required factual verification.
The Tribunal noted that while the car was purchased in the husband's name, it was funded by the assessee's business. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as log books or travel details, to prove that the car was used for business purposes either wholly or partly.
The Tribunal noted that the chargeability of salary income for a non-resident depends on services rendered in India as per Section 9(1)(ii). The AO and CIT(A) did not verify this crucial aspect. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for necessary verification.
The Tribunal observed that the details and dates of notices mentioned in the penalty order did not tally with the ITBA portal records. It was also noted that the assessment order date differed from what was stated in the penalty order. Given these discrepancies, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for necessary verification.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax/VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. This decision was based on the principle that the purpose for which the subsidy is granted is the determining factor, and in this case, the subsidy was intended for setting up new industrial units and promoting industrialization in backward areas, not for augmenting profits.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are considered cooperative societies under the relevant Act and definition. Therefore, interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal observed that the case was a second round of proceedings and the sole issue was explaining the source of the cash deposit. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Ground No. 1 was dismissed as the assessee did not press it, stating the addition was deleted vide an order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s directions. 2. Regarding additions on account of personal withdrawals (Rs. 21,60,000/-) and drawings (Rs. 2,74,080/-), the Tribunal held that the AO had not made any addition on account of personal withdrawals, nor was there any reduction of capital balance declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) made these additions for the first time while adjudicating the appeal, which the Tribunal found to be beyond the scope of the AO's assessment. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in CIT v/s Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria and CIT v/s Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s power of enhancement is restricted to the subject matter of assessment or sources of income considered by the AO. Therefore, the additions made by the CIT(A) on account of personal withdrawals and drawings were deleted. 3. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 57, following its own decisions in the assessee's and family members' cases. 4. Regarding the calculation of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest liability after reducing the amount of tax deductible at source, following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case. Ground No. 1 was dismissed. Grounds relating to personal withdrawals and drawings were allowed. Grounds relating to interest payable and set off of TDS for Section 234B were allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is applicable only when an allowance or deduction was claimed in respect of a trading liability and subsequently there was a remission or cessation. In this case, the outstanding amounts were unsecured loans, and there was no evidence of any allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of these loans. Furthermore, the assessee had provided evidence of repayment, which was overlooked by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days due to issues with the previous tax consultant. The assessee could not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A) as notices were sent to the old consultant's email. In the interest of justice and fair play, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total turnover was significantly lower than the alleged bogus purchases. While the assessee provided some evidence of purchase from M/s Impex Gems, there was no material evidence of actual delivery. However, the CIT(A) had already restricted the addition to the amount that appeared in the assessee's accounts, finding that the rest of the claimed purchases were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the purchases from Impex Gems were accommodation entries, but confirmed the reduced addition as no further purchases were evidenced.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total turnover was significantly lower than the alleged bogus purchases. While the assessee provided some evidence of purchase from M/s Impex Gems, there was no material evidence of actual delivery. However, the CIT(A) had already restricted the addition to the amount that appeared in the assessee's accounts, finding that the rest of the claimed purchases were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the purchases from Impex Gems were accommodation entries, but confirmed the reduced addition as no further purchases were evidenced.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reliance on consultants and the procedural complexities. The CIT(E)'s orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration with the application to be decided under the correct provision (Clause (i) of the First Proviso of sub-Section (5) of Section 80G in Form 10AB).
The Tribunal noted that a subsequent event, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order cancelling the agreement for Flat No.1503 and holding the entitlement void ab initio, means the assessee is no longer in possession or has title to the flat. Therefore, the addition made as business income cannot be sustained.
The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal, and the Department had no objections. The Tribunal granted the permission for withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's reliance on consultants and the procedural complexities. The CIT(E)'s orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration with the application to be decided under the correct provision (Clause (i) of the First Proviso of sub-Section (5) of Section 80G in Form 10AB).
The Tribunal held that Section 70 of the Income-tax Act does not prescribe a specific hierarchy for setting off short-term capital losses against gains. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to adopt the set-off method most beneficial to it.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing adjustment was uncalled for, as the assessee demonstrated net benefits from sales through its AE, considering working capital costs and risk factors. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial interest-free funds and the AO's failure to record satisfaction for disallowance, allowing the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax/VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. This decision was based on the principle that the purpose for which the subsidy is granted is the determining factor, and in this case, the subsidy was intended for setting up new industrial units and promoting industrialization in backward areas, not for augmenting profits.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax/VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. This decision was based on the principle that the purpose for which the subsidy is granted is the determining factor, and in this case, the subsidy was intended for setting up new industrial units and promoting industrialization in backward areas, not for augmenting profits.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee on five different occasions, but the assessee did not comply with any of them and made no endeavor to make submissions. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication afresh on merit. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions for expeditious disposal, and to refrain from seeking adjournments except for compelling circumstances. The CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observation was made on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed in terms of the above directions, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax/VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. This decision was based on the principle that the purpose for which the subsidy is granted is the determining factor, and in this case, the subsidy was intended for setting up new industrial units and promoting industrialization in backward areas, not for augmenting profits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the 'purpose test' established by the Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., which states that the character of the receipt depends on the purpose for which the subsidy is given. Since the subsidy aimed at promoting industrialization and establishing new units in backward areas, it was held to be a capital receipt.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the expenses claimed, including salaries, wages, professional fees, and interest expenses, with payments made through banking channels and TDS deducted where applicable. The ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO was not sustained as no specific shortcomings were pointed out.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and did not provide proper discussion and findings as required. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunities for submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, not a banking company. The amendment in Section 80P(4) regarding co-operative banks is not applicable. Therefore, the society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned from its members.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, not a banking company. The amendment in Section 80P(4) regarding co-operative banks is not applicable. Therefore, the society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned from its members.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified. The assessee's claim that the cash receipts were voluntarily offered for taxation was rejected, as the disclosure was made only after the detection of concealment during the search. The claims for cost of improvement and BMC fees were also found to be unsubstantiated and disallowed, justifying the penalty on these amounts as well.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, not a banking company. The amendment in Section 80P(4) regarding co-operative banks is not applicable. Therefore, the society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned from its members.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and did not adjudicate on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee itself disallowed 30% of the royalty payment as required under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, indicating that tax was deductible in the year under consideration. However, it also noted the assessee's claim that TDS was deducted in the subsequent year when the payment crystallized. Consequently, the AO was directed to provide credit for TDS deducted after verification.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner's order did not clarify whether the assessee had been served notice. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal noted that no notice or opportunity was granted to the assessee before the first appeal was decided by the NFAC. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not properly examine the documents, and there were contradictions regarding GST filings. While acknowledging the possibility of bills from one party and goods from another, the Tribunal found the AO's disallowance of the entire purchase amount to be incorrect.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the parties were granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they failed to deposit the requisite amount or settle the dispute through the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D without recording specific dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts. It directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A by excluding investments not yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a directive to verify the assessee's claim for TDS credit of Rs.1,99,13,633/-. The JAO is instructed to reconcile entries in Form 26AS with the assessee's profit and loss account to ensure the income against which TDS was claimed was offered for taxation and then allow the claim as per law.
The Tribunal held that reopening of proceedings under section 147 of the Act while section 154 proceedings were pending is not permissible, citing the Supreme Court judgment in S.M. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the reassessment order was quashed as void ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A could not be rejected, but directed the Assessing Officer to exclude certain investments from the calculation. The appeal concerning book profits was dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient dissatisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. However, the judgment indicates that the matter is being remanded for further examination on specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee was in the nature of capital gains, following its own previous decision for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency when facts and circumstances remain unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the high seas sales transactions, involving the transfer of documents of title while goods were in transit, constituted actual delivery and were not speculative. The Tribunal also found that export incentives and excess provisions written back were part of the business.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee's actions did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the latest CBDT circular. Furthermore, the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not appear before the AO and the CIT(A) did not entertain fresh evidence, dismissing the appeal summarily. It was felt that the appellant did not get an effective opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that an unintentional error in filling the application form should not be held against the assessee, especially when a rectifying application was filed. The CIT's order was set aside, and the matter was restored for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record specific dissatisfaction with the assessee's disallowance claim before invoking Rule 8D. It also directed the AO to exclude certain investments from the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A.
The Principal CIT invoked revisionary powers under section 263, holding the AO's order erroneous due to lack of detailed inquiry. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and accepted the purchases based on the provided documents. The PCIT's order was deemed to have been passed without sufficient material.
The Tribunal concurred with the authorities below that the purchases were bogus due to the assessee's failure to provide proper documents to establish their genuineness. However, the Tribunal agreed that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to income.