Loading ITAT cases…
541 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The ITAT concluded that the assessee's Memorandum and Articles of Association clearly permitted engaging in real estate development and dealing in land, thus the transactions were part of its business activities. Consequently, the income, including the compensation of Rs.90 lakh, was rightly treated as business income and not 'income from other sources' by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the financial statements of CSI BD Mauritius require further examination by the AO. For the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case and held that the business was set up, making the expenses deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with cogent evidence. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries or provide adverse material to shift the onus back to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the details pertaining to the loan and computation of interest available for deduction in the hands of the assessee need to be verified by the AO. The Tribunal therefore remitted this issue back to the AO to consider the claim based on the evidence filed by the assessee, while granting a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the submission of Form 3CLA is a mandatory prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 35(2AB). Since the assessee failed to furnish it, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the claim was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment, based on the initial application and significant payments made towards acquiring the property, should be considered the date of acquisition. This implies that the property was held for a period exceeding 36 months, qualifying it as a long-term capital asset.
Considering the Assessee's willingness to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the lack of opposition from the Revenue, the appeal was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the Assessee fails to deposit the requisite amount under the scheme.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not conduct a proper factual analysis of the case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not conduct a proper factual analysis of the case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Techspan India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while Section 80A(5) might have been wrongly invoked by the AO, Section 80AC, which mandates filing of the return of income within the due date to claim deduction under Chapter VI-A, was applicable. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the return, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal, considering that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the corresponding sales and relying on a previous decision for AY 2010-11, restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 14,95,780/-. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds related to the validity of reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash deposits were genuine sales and that the cash payments were either not subject to Section 40A(3) or were within prescribed limits. The Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence for its findings.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be computed from the first day of the assessment year, as the delay in proceedings was not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions stating that unless delay is proven to be attributable to the assessee, interest should be reckoned from the beginning of the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be computed from the first day of the assessment year, as the delay in proceedings was not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions stating that unless delay is proven to be attributable to the assessee, interest should be reckoned from the beginning of the assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since made tax payments after the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to verify the tax payments and then adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 1 was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while others were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9) under which the assessee was alleged to have misreported income. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not furnish necessary details. Considering the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to provide all relevant details and evidence for the expenses claimed.
The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy regarding condonation of delay, emphasizing a liberal view for short durations and preferring decisions on merit over technicalities. The Tribunal found that the delay ought to have been condoned, considering the appellant's circumstances and the lack of definitive proof of physical service of the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the application by the Ld.CIT(E) appeared to be due to a technical mistake.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to examine the depreciation claim on intangible assets, despite a contrary view in the preceding year, made the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The revision orders by the PCIT were upheld.
The appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn because the Assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty is granted to the parties to seek recall of the order in case of failure to pay the requisite amount under the scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit of Rs. 1,100/-. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty for parties to seek recall if the assessee fails to deposit the requisite amount under the VSVS scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit of Rs. 1,100/-. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty for parties to seek recall if the assessee fails to deposit the requisite amount under the VSVS scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged only in the business of imitation jewellery and no other income was declared. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and with the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal directed that the unexplained amount of Rs. 16,81,802/- be treated as business receipts, subject to a profit of 8%.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid was a reimbursement on a cost-to-cost basis and did not constitute income in the hands of the recipient. Therefore, the liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194A did not arise.
The Tribunal held that the Synco Industries case, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, clarifies that while gross total income must be computed after adjusting losses, the deduction under Section 80-I(6) is calculated based on the profits of the specific undertaking as if it were the only source of income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s enhancement was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the issues selected for limited scrutiny, even if the AO or Addl. CIT raises new issues. The powers of the CIT(A) are restricted to the scope of the original limited scrutiny unless the case is converted to complete scrutiny following due procedure.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on a generalized report from the Investigation Wing without establishing a direct link between the assessee and any manipulation. The assessee had purchased and sold the shares through the stock exchange platform via banking channels and in demat form, providing all necessary documentation. Similar cases have been decided in favor of the assessee when transactions were conducted on the stock exchange.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee PF contribution based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, regarding the Section 80G deduction for CSR expenses, the Tribunal noted that CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37(1) and referred to a coordinate bench's decision that denied such deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to examine the depreciation claim on intangible assets, despite a contrary view in the preceding year, made the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The revision orders by the PCIT were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appellant's challenge to the AO's jurisdiction was raised for the first time before the ITAT, which was beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 124(3)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology was relied upon, stating that if jurisdiction is not challenged within 30 days of the notice, it cannot be questioned later.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of 15% for purchases from accommodation entry providers was reasonable, estimating the profit element. For purchases from other suppliers, the Tribunal found the AO unjustified in disallowing the entire amount solely because the suppliers did not respond to notices, especially since the assessee had furnished supporting documents and the tax authorities found no deficiency in them.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee's reliance on their tax consultant and lack of technical knowledge contributed to the delay, and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of 15% for purchases from accommodation entry providers was reasonable, estimating the profit element. For purchases from other suppliers, the Tribunal found the AO unjustified in disallowing the entire amount solely because the suppliers did not respond to notices, especially since the assessee had furnished supporting documents and the tax authorities found no deficiency in them.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had submitted the necessary forms. Considering this submission, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had submitted the necessary forms. Considering this submission, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal heard both sides and perused the material on record. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid was a reimbursement on a cost-to-cost basis and did not constitute income in the hands of the recipient. Therefore, the liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194A did not arise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of interest income earned from deposits kept with cooperative banks. The Tribunal noted that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Ramas Tower Co-Operative Housing Society vs. ITO, which followed the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. The Madras High Court had held that a cooperative bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act falls within the definition of 'cooperative society' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also observed that the delay in filing the return of income had already been condoned by the Ld CCIT. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in denying the deduction and had ignored the binding decisions of the ITAT and Hon'ble High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on a generalized investigation report without establishing the assessee's involvement in price rigging or finding fault with the documentary evidence provided. The assessee's transactions were supported by documentation and were not found to be part of manipulated trades.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not responded to notices from both the AO and the CIT(A). However, to ensure fairness and provide an opportunity to be heard on merits, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of 15% for purchases from accommodation entry providers was reasonable, estimating the profit element. For purchases from other suppliers, the Tribunal found the AO unjustified in disallowing the entire amount solely because the suppliers did not respond to notices, especially since the assessee had furnished supporting documents and the tax authorities found no deficiency in them.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of 15% for purchases from accommodation entry providers was reasonable, estimating the profit element. For purchases from other suppliers, the Tribunal found the AO unjustified in disallowing the entire amount solely because the suppliers did not respond to notices, especially since the assessee had furnished supporting documents and the tax authorities found no deficiency in them.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal, as stated in column 10 of Form No. 36, was Rs. 54,02,573. This amount was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if it was later found that the appeal fell under any exceptions provided in the said circular. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the deletion of the addition for bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order in paragraph 7 indicated that the assessee obtained two PAN numbers. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the two PAN numbers and the assessment of the SBN amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- which was allegedly already assessed under the PAN of M/s. Shree Kaleshwar Tours and Travels. The Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the matter needed to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the whole addition/disallowance afresh, giving the assessee an effective hearing within 60 days. The impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions themselves but remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 is confined to the issues examined during the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that the AO had verified the intangible asset investments, and there was no specific direction for verification of depreciation. Citing various judicial precedents, including Supreme Court and ITAT rulings, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's order failed to meet the conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was inadequate. It is a cardinal principle that incriminating material cannot be relied upon without confronting the assessee and providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) fall within the parameters for condonation as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are meant to aid justice, and substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It was noted that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee had proved sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay. The Tribunal directed that no order should be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at this stage, as the matter was being restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that 'tax' for the purpose of Section 249(4) does not include interest, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Consequently, the appeal before the CIT(A) deserves to be restored as the tax was paid.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.