Loading ITAT cases…
667 orders · Page 7 of 14
The Tribunal held that the claim for additional TDS credit should be verified by the AO and allowed if the corresponding income was offered to tax. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the TDS claim, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the claim for additional TDS credit should be verified by the AO and allowed if the corresponding income was offered to tax. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the TDS claim, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that capital gains on shares acquired before April 1, 2017, are exempt under the DTAA and cannot be set off against losses. Losses from shares acquired after April 1, 2017, can only be set off against similar gains and cannot be set off against exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the claim for additional TDS credit should be verified by the AO and allowed if the corresponding income was offered to tax. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the TDS claim, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity and genuineness of the payments made for labour charges, and non-response from the parties to a notice u/s 133(6) was not sufficient ground for addition.
The Tribunal held that procedural errors in reporting should not override substantive rights of the taxpayer and that the claim should be examined by the Assessing Officer after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have reopened the assessment for the same reasons when it had already been framed under Section 147 and previously restricted by the Tribunal. The reopening was deemed to be a change of opinion. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Usha Exports vs. ACIT, the notice for reopening was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, are prospective and do not apply retrospectively. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the inadvertent error in their application. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if needed, depending on the final outcome of the VsV Scheme application.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were accommodation entries provided by the Bhanwarlal Jain group, who were found to be operating dummy concerns. The lenders were identified as name lenders and employees of the group, and their statements corroborated this. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable as the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination and the lender later retracted their statement.
The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses incurred for expansion of existing business are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also held that interest on borrowed funds for advancing interest-free loans to associate entities is allowable if the assessee has sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the application without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish requisite details.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the application without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish requisite details.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be restored to the file of the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all documents and evidence supporting its claim for expenditure. The learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) was instructed to pass no order without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Additional/Joint CIT(A) was also given the liberty to seek a remand report from the AO regarding the documents furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes. The ratio is that principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity to present evidence, and if such an opportunity was denied, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in invoking Section 144 due to the assessee's non-compliance, adding the entire purchase amount as bogus was not appropriate, especially when sales were not doubted. The addition was restricted to the extent of gross profit at 15% of the impugned purchases.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, accepting the assessee's application to withdraw due to their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if necessary, contingent on the final outcome of their VsV Scheme application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was filed within the statutory time limit as the cause of action arose upon receiving the intimation via email, not from the date of the rectification order itself.
The Tribunal held that the due date for filing the return was extended by the CBDT order under Section 119, making the assessee's filing within the extended period valid. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is generally decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments with cooperative banks. The Tribunal noted that Section 80P(4) excludes cooperative banks from claiming deductions under Section 80P, but this does not affect a cooperative society earning interest from a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the accumulated amounts were utilized for the main objects of the trust in subsequent years. Therefore, Section 11(3)(a) read with Section 11(3)(i) would apply, making the utilized amounts taxable in the years of utilization, not in AY 2012-13. The addition should be reduced by the amounts utilized.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an agent for its principal and that the documentation charges were shared equally as per their agreement. Relying on the Bharati Cellular Ltd case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had categorically mentioned the assessee's failure to file substantive documents to discharge its onus under Section 68. Due to the need to examine relevant documents for a just decision, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses incurred for expansion of existing business are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also held that interest on borrowed funds for advancing interest-free loans to associate entities is allowable if the assessee has sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal found that the AO had made specific inquiries regarding the lease modification and accepted the assessee's explanation that the net effect was zero. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal and allowed it. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be met by deciding the lis on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing PAN details, ITRs, financial statements, and bank statements of the creditors, proving their identity, sufficient funds, and transaction genuineness. The tax authorities did not disprove the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by submitting documents like ITRs, confirmations, and bank statements, and that loans were transacted and repaid through banking channels. The AO's further inquiry was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT passed the revision order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside and the issues were restored for a fresh revision order.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters back for reconsideration. The Tribunal noted the assessee's assurance to comply with all queries if given an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a senior citizen and her bonafides for not responding to the notices are not in doubt as she did not receive them. The main appeal concerning Capital Gains is still pending adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already offered net profit of 10.57% on the transactions in question, which was part of the total gross receipts declared under section 44AD. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT to the extent of Rs. 25,19,936/- was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters back for reconsideration. The Tribunal noted the assessee's assurance to comply with all queries if given an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the delay in depositing the cost of Rs. 5,000/- should be condoned. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the matter was restored back to him for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme, 2024, and filed the relevant form. In view of this, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of cost is a disciplinary measure and the assessee had effectively complied with the direction, despite a minor delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained investment in RIL shares, finding that the opening stock was correctly considered. Regarding other unexplained investments, the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the documents pertained to other entities and referred to a previous Tribunal order for AY 1991-92.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the quantum of interest earned from co-operative banks and whether it was declared as business income or income from other sources. The CIT(A) erred in not following the procedure for admitting additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of cost is a disciplinary measure and the assessee had effectively complied with the direction, despite a minor delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed the order without confronting the Assessee and that the Assessee had an opportunity to rectify the error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed it to decide the application afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order is unsustainable because the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specifically mention the ground for penalty and failed to strike off the inapplicable portion, as per Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of cost is a disciplinary measure and the assessee had effectively complied with the direction, despite a minor delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot be imposed when the addition is made on the basis of an estimate of gross profit, especially when it was restricted to 12.5% by a co-ordinate bench. The CIT(A) failed to consider this aspect. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the 'The Direct Tax – Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme, 2024' for settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that granting TDS credit as per Form No. 26AS is not a controversial issue and falls within the scope of Section 154. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the intimation order was indeed served on the assessee on a later date than initially presumed, making the appeal filed by the assessee within the statutory limitation period. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars authorize Commissioners to condone delays in filing Form 10B. Since the delay was within 365 days and potentially due to technical glitches, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the hedging loss as it was already allowed by the AO. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal held that it cannot be applied for computing book profit under Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision.