Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 11 of 13
The Tribunal held that the purchase price adjustment should be reduced from the cost of goods sold/operating cost, not from operating revenue, as done by the TPO. It also directed the exclusion of companies that failed the turnover filter and restored the issue of related party transactions to the TPO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular extended the due date for filing the return of income to 31-10-2018. As the assessee filed its return on 30-10-2018, which was within the extended due date, the deduction under Section 80P is allowable.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee was not examined by the authorities below. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment, not the date of the sale agreement, determines the acquisition date for capital gains purposes. Therefore, the flat was a long-term capital asset. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the claim for exemption under Section 54.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 1 had been received. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to reinstate if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench's decision and the principle that a construction favouring the assessee should be adopted in case of ambiguity.
The tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal filed before the ITAT Mumbai as it was wrongly filed. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was inadvertent and due to a technological error, not intentional under-reporting. As soon as the mistake was noticed, the assessee took steps to rectify it.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for other assessment years with identical facts were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the present appeal to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the terms 'total sales', 'turnover', or 'gross receipts' for the purpose of section 44AB are not defined in the Act but have been interpreted by judicial precedents. 'Total sales' and 'turnover' generally refer to the aggregate price of sales or sale proceeds of goods sold, representing money turned over in business. 'Gross receipts' can be similarly interpreted as aggregate receipts from carrying on business. In the present case, the assessee's revenue from operations was Nil. The write-back of INR 160,60,99,934, representing waived interest expenses, was disclosed as 'Other Income'. The Tribunal found no material to suggest this amount constituted 'total sales', 'turnover', or 'gross receipts' from carrying on business. It was merely a reversal of prior year's disallowed interest expenses, considered income only for computation of total income. Therefore, the assessee was not required to get its accounts audited under section 44AB. Consequently, the AO's action of considering the return defective under section 139(9) was incorrect. The Tribunal restored the return to the file of the AO for processing/assessment as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant due to non-receipt of notices. While acknowledging the revenue's opposition, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Considering the same, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present the necessary details. The orders passed by the Ld.CIT(E) were set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present the necessary details. The orders passed by the Ld.CIT(E) were set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the required tax has been deposited.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue of sale consideration to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing verification of actual sale consideration received till the relevant year. The disallowance under section 40A(3) was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to prove exceptions under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024'. Based on the assessee's request for withdrawal due to this settlement, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. The ultimate result was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue is no longer res integra and has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in its own cases for preceding assessment years. The Tribunal noted that co-ordinate benches have held that profits on sale of investments are exempt u/s.10(38), interest on securities is exempt u/s.10(15), and dividend on shares is exempt u/s.10(34) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to its own orders in ITA No. 7844/MUM/2011 (AY 2007-08), ITA No. 3712/MUM/2013 (AY 2008-09), ITA No. 6832/MUM/2014 (AY 2009-10), and ITA No. 1432/MUM/2016 (AY 2010-11), as well as a decision in ACIT v. General Insurance Company for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal also noted that the view of the co-ordinate benches is in consonance with the clarification issued by the CBDT vide Circular dated 21.02.2006, which clarifies that exemptions available to any other assessee under Section 10 shall also be made available to a person carrying on non-life insurance business. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which was affirmed. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that for AY 2014-15, the findings in AY 2013-14 would mutatis mutandis apply.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's working for setting off current year short-term capital loss quarterly and brought-forward short-term capital loss from the first quarter. It also found that the assessee could not be penalized for the payer's failure to deduct TDS on interest income.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because the prior approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the activities of a nursing home constitute business, not profession, and therefore Section 44AD is applicable. It also noted that the addition of the entire receipt, rather than the profit margin, was incorrect, especially when the assessee had consistently offered profit within an accepted range.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income assessed under the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b), especially when the valuation was disputed and revised by the Valuation Officer. The penalty imposed was deemed not tenable.
The Tribunal allowed grounds 2 and 3, holding that Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the facts of the case. The Tribunal noted that Section 32 of the Act, which allows depreciation on intangible assets, was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, effective from April 1, 1999. Furthermore, the definition of 'block of assets' under Section 2(11) was amended to include intangible assets only from April 1, 1999. Crucially, depreciation on intangible assets is available only for those acquired on or after April 1, 1998. In this case, both trademarks, 'Coldarin' and 'Raricap', were acquired before April 1, 1998. Therefore, they did not form part of a block of assets for which depreciation could be claimed, and consequently, the conditions for invoking Section 50 were not met. The capital gains were thus to be treated as Long Term Capital Gains. Ground 4, being 'without prejudice', was rendered academic and left undecided. Grounds 5 and 6 were dismissed as not pressed. Grounds 7 to 9, concerning interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D, were held to be consequential and required no separate adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had applied for withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had completed the required compliances. The Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the personal nature of some claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's stay in India was 183 days, making him a resident. The period spent in the USA for seeking career and business opportunities was not considered 'employment' for the purpose of the exemption.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after 4 years are invalid if there's no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the AO had already inquired into the car hiring charges during the original assessment, the reassessment was based on a change of opinion and thus bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the Ld. DR did not raise any objections. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits and investments, including explanations for credit entries and cash deposits, and had also explained other loans.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that exemptions under Sections 10(38), 10(15), and 10(34) are allowable to insurance companies.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make further submissions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed as the assessee had concealed particulars of income by claiming a bogus deduction. The subsequent surrender of the deduction was not considered voluntary.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide credible evidence of the alleged transactions to the assessee before making the addition. Since the AO did not confront the assessee with any material, the addition made was without basis.
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. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form 1 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024 to settle the dispute. No objection was raised by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the commission charged at 0.5% is reasonable and appropriate, considering past assessments, ITAT rulings in the appellant's own case, and decisions of other benches and the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under section 263 were initiated beyond the period of limitation. The limitation for revisionary proceedings is to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order when the issues involved are distinct from the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because the prior approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the valuation reports submitted by the assessee were inconsistent and lacked clarity regarding the method used and whether they were presented to the AO. Both parties agreed that the issue required fresh examination by the AO. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the prior approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were neither hedging nor speculative. It concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the loss, which was accounted for by journal entries and intended to set off profits from share transactions.
The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, considering the assessee's voluntary option under the 'Vivad-se-Sishwas' scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee trust had indeed made an inadvertent error by selecting clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) instead of clause (iii) in its Form 10AB application, which was filed on 25.05.2024. It was not disputed that the assessee trust had an existing 80G approval and a valid provisional registration from 24.09.2021 to AY 2024-2025. The Tribunal noted that this was a typographical or inadvertent mistake, subject to correction. Citing the decision of the Pune ITAT in Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajajonatti Nyas, where a similar technical mistake in an application under Section 12A led to the matter being set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, the Mumbai Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on this ground. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application on merits, treating the error as a correctable mistake. The operative direction is to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The penalty appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. A cost of Rs. 11,000 was imposed on the assessee for lack of diligence.
The Tribunal held that the intention of the donor, as evidenced by the Will and the conduct of the assessee in treating it as a corpus donation, indicates that the endowment is of a capital nature. Therefore, it is eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.