Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 5 of 13
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not able to present its case before the CIT(A) due to being proceeded ex-parte. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding undisclosed capital gains and unsecured loans. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the tax was actually deducted at source by the parties making payments to the assessee. If verified, credit would be granted in accordance with law.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the tax was actually deducted at source by the parties making payments to the assessee. If verified, credit would be granted in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it on merits. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the assessee was ex-parte earlier.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal, in light of this, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not able to present its case before the CIT(A) due to being proceeded ex-parte. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The assessee filed an application under 'The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme, 2024' for settlement. In light of this, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the settlement does not materialize.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a religious trust and the intent of the legislation is not to tax donations made to religious trusts on the ground of anonymity. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(E)'s well-reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling on a similar issue.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not able to present its case before the CIT(A) due to being proceeded ex-parte. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The appellant's Authorized Representative (AR) stated that the appellant availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by establishing the identity of the creditors and the source of the credits. The addition was made on the basis of non-establishing the 'source of source', which is not sustainable under the un-amended Section 68 of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claims regarding depreciation on intangible assets and foreign exchange loss, treating them as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, based on its previous order for AY 2012-2013. The issue concerning the carry forward and set off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Other grounds were not pressed or deemed formal.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the Supreme Court decision in Mavilayi Services Cooperative Bank Limited, and several other coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the appellant society is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to cooperate for expeditious completion of assessment.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed lack of opportunity, the CIT had granted reasonable time. However, the issue was not adjudicated properly, and considering the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the CIT(Exemption) and had also pursued an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the assessee as not in default of tax until the condonation petition is resolved and remitted the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not aware of the faceless assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the adjournment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 162.75 lakhs received from CIPL was related to AY 2013-14 and not AY 2014-15, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion. However, regarding the funds from Shri Kuldeep Halwasiya, the Tribunal found a violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules as the CIT(A) considered new evidence without confronting the AO, thus setting aside the order and restoring the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Rate Difference Write-off): The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the difference in rate written off was not substantiated. The assessee claimed that additional kilometers were run for safety and wear and tear, but failed to provide evidence to justify this claim or demonstrate that the principal contractor was liable for such additional costs. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established a contractual right to claim this amount from the principal contractor, and therefore, its debit to the profit and loss account as a write-off was not a genuine business loss. The addition of Rs.32,31,483/- was upheld. Issue 2 (Section 37(1) Disallowance): The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs.2,61,363/- under Section 37(1) was justified as the assessee itself had disallowed these expenses in its return of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided any valid reason or justification for claiming these expenses in the first place if they were subsequently disallowed. Issue 3 (Section 43B Disallowance): The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs.5,82,761/- for Service Tax and Rs.16,08,900/- for VAT under Section 43B was justified because these amounts were not paid on or before the due dates. The assessee's claim that these were subsequently disallowed in the return of income did not absolve it from the requirement of timely payment as stipulated by Section 43B. Issue 4 & 5 (Penalty and Interest): As the additions and disallowances were upheld, the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were also upheld as consequential. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal found that the addition on account of commission was not justified as the Ld. CIT(A) had already deleted it. Regarding the cash deposit during demonetization, the Tribunal held that while the explanation for accumulation was not plausible, the deposit was out of business transactions, and therefore, profit element was to be taxed at 8%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the appellate authorities, adhering to principles of natural justice. Issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the assessee's affidavit for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the appellate authorities, adhering to principles of natural justice. Issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the assessee's affidavit for the delay.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide a plausible explanation for non-appearance or non-receipt of notices but noted the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in limine without merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to pay a token cost of Rs.5500/- and ensure compliance with future notices.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant had received the desired relief through a rectification application, rendering the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, stating that mere misclassification of a sum in the books of account does not justify treating it as an unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance on commission payments.
The Tribunal held that the addition was on account of disallowance of interest on a loan from an earlier year. It further observed that the exception clause cited by the Revenue was not applicable as the addition was not based on any information or enquiry by an external agency. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the addition on account of commission was not justified as the Ld. CIT(A) had already deleted it. Regarding the cash deposit during demonetization, the Tribunal held that while the explanation for accumulation was not plausible, the deposit was out of business transactions, and therefore, profit element was to be taxed at 8%.
The Tribunal held that the entire gross receipts cannot be taxed and only the 'real income' embedded in disputed transactions should be brought to tax. Accordingly, the additions were restricted to the estimated brokerage/commission income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and send notices to the correct email ID.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on a generalized investigation report without establishing a direct link to the assessee's transactions or proving manipulation. The assessee provided evidence of purchase and sale through stock exchange and banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the appellant's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) had already been decided in its favour in previous assessment years by the ITAT and relied on Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that broken period interest paid on securities held as stock-in-trade is allowable as a revenue expenditure, following Supreme Court decisions. Similarly, amortization of premium on securities in the HTM category was also allowed as revenue expenditure, aligning with High Court and ITAT precedents.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was based solely on assumption and presumption without pointing out any defects in the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The sales of agricultural produce were confirmed by a third party, and the ownership of the land was also verified.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). They reasoned that cooperative banks are a type of cooperative society.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to revive it if the settlement under the DTVSV scheme was not finalized. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the appellate authorities, adhering to principles of natural justice. Issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the assessee's affidavit for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase consideration was paid by the assessee's husband, who declared the property as his own. Therefore, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) could not be made in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issues related to R&D services were settled by the Bi-lateral Advance Pricing Arrangement (BAPA) and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). Consequently, the grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee concerning these issues were dismissed as withdrawn or settled.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiry regarding the classification of interest income and the allowability of expenses. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiry regarding the classification of interest income and the allowability of expenses. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on inflated capital expenditure is not to be adjusted while computing book profit under Section 115JB, as there is no specific provision for it. However, the claim of depreciation on goodwill was not entertained as it was a fresh claim made in the return filed under Section 153A.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity to produce additional documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity to the appellant to produce relevant documents before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding unsecured loans, especially after verification during the remand proceedings. Similarly, for consultancy fees, the CIT(A) had verified the identity and nature of expenditure, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issues related to R&D services were settled by the Bi-lateral Advance Pricing Arrangement (BAPA) and Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). Consequently, the grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee concerning these issues were dismissed as withdrawn or settled.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the diversion of funds to ABET, another charitable trust, did not violate Section 13(3) as it was for charitable activities. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee's consistent use of the cash system for 'Income from Other Sources' was permissible under Section 145.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing due to unavoidable reasons and that natural justice was denied. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file evidence and documents.
The Tribunal held that the appellant society is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, reversing the order of the CIT(A). This decision was based on the precedent set by coordinate benches following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.