Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 9 of 13
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed its own previous decision and High Court judgments which treated cooperative banks as cooperative societies for the purpose of this section.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) had not followed the correct law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in General Motors India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244, which was also followed by the Jurisdictional High Court in Bond Safety Belts vs. DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 222. The Tribunal noted that the Bond Safety Belts judgment was delivered after the CIT(A)'s order. Following the mandate of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal held that the assessee is right in carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,18,93,030/- against income from house property and short-term capital gains. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue, directing the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 could be set off against short-term capital gains. The issue of whether unabsorbed depreciation before 2002 could be carried forward indefinitely was implicitly answered in the affirmative by allowing the set off, aligning with the cited High Court judgments.
The Tribunal restored the issue of reimbursement of salary and related costs for seconded employees to the file of the TPO/Assessing Officer for re-examination. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, which allowed deduction if TDS was paid before the due date of filing the return, should be interpreted retrospectively, applying from the assessment year 2005-2006. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the first ground. It held that the assessee is a non-resident foreign company and thus an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(ii) of the Act. The AO is mandated to issue a draft assessment order before passing a final assessment order in such cases, as per Section 144C(1). The Tribunal noted that the AO passed the final assessment order without issuing a draft order, which was not disputed by the revenue. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in International Air Transport Association vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that the failure to pass a draft order is not a curable defect, as it violates the assessee's statutory right to raise objections before a final order is passed. Therefore, the final assessment order was quashed as being without jurisdiction. Consequently, the other submissions regarding the merits of the DTAA claim and the amendment to Section 144C(1) were rendered academic and left undecided.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are indeed cooperative societies as per the definition in the Act and state-specific cooperative societies acts. Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the payments made to DGSHL were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following its own previous decisions. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal addressed multiple grounds. For the depreciation on let-out premises, the Tribunal noted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee in its own case for AY 2005-06, and consistently by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches. Following this consistent view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's ground. Regarding rural development expenses, advertisement film production costs, and sales tax subsidy, it was a common point that these issues were consistently decided in favour of the assessee in past assessment years by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reiterated that sales tax subsidy receipts are of a capital nature and not taxable. Respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and coordinate benches, the decisions of the CIT(A) were upheld for these grounds, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed. One ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was also directed to verify the percentage of the Parsi community benefited from the trust's activities.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are indeed cooperative societies as per the definition in the Act and state-specific cooperative societies acts. Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to credit for the opening cash balance of Rs. 15,14,268/- available for the year under consideration. Only the balance amount is to be brought to tax.
The assessee did not appear for the hearing and expressed an intention to withdraw the appeal via written submission. The Departmental Representative had nothing to controvert this. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent her case before the lower authorities due to procedural lapses regarding delay condonation and admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and there were issues with the notices provided for compliance. The Tribunal held that for the interest of justice and to decide the issues on merits, the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee on the issue of the deductibility of proportionate premium on leasehold land. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal itself for multiple preceding assessment years, citing specific appeal numbers and dates of decisions. The Tribunal observed that the lease was for a long period of 99 years, and the upfront premium paid was considered as advance rent. The reasoning followed the principle that such premium, when amortized over the lease period, represents an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and is therefore deductible. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's disallowance by relying on decisions that were distinguishable or not applicable to the facts of the case, especially in light of the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases for prior years. The operative direction is the allowance of the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the Departmental Representative could not substantiate any exceptions to the circular, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It relied on previous coordinate bench decisions and distinguished contrary High Court rulings.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee failed to provide any counter-evidence or submissions. The CIT(A)'s findings regarding the sham nature of the transactions and the consequent additions were deemed justified.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the Departmental Representative could not substantiate any exceptions to the circular, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the Departmental Representative could not substantiate any exceptions to the circular, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151 was not obtained. The approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas for notices issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval from a higher authority like the Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General was required.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the Departmental Representative could not substantiate any exceptions to the circular, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proportionate premium on leasehold land written off is allowable as a deduction, following its own consistent decisions for preceding years. It also held that reduction in share capital and redemption of units for bonds constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act, allowing for capital loss deduction.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made without irrebuttable evidence and that the AO failed to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure was actually incurred. The Tribunal also noted that the seized papers did not mention cash payments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases (3%). This was based on the consistent practice in previous assessment years and other similar cases where only the profit margin was taxed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151 was not obtained. The approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas for notices issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval from a higher authority like the Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General was required.
The Tribunal held that the running of the chemist shop is not only essential but also incidental or ancillary to the dominant object and purpose of running a hospital. The Tribunal noted that medicines are essential for patient care, especially for in-house patients, and that outpatients and outsiders are at liberty to purchase medicines from the hospital's pharmacy. The Tribunal found that the assessee was providing medical relief by selling medicines, which is protected by CBDT Circulars. It was also observed that the pharmacy store was not established exclusively for outsiders and that any surplus was not utilized for purposes other than the prescribed charitable objects. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee maintained separate books of account for the pharmacy store, thus complying with both conditions of section 11(4A). Consequently, the income from the pharmacy store was held to be incidental to the dominant object of running the hospital, and the AO's action in treating it as taxable business income was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an aborted IPO, which did not result in any enduring benefit or asset creation, are allowable as revenue expenditure. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the Departmental Representative could not substantiate any exceptions to the circular, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 973 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's senior citizen status, relocation, and the circumstances leading to the mistaken withdrawal. However, the Tribunal held that once an appeal is withdrawn, it is not maintainable, and consequently dismissed the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative housing society from its investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the standard deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c).
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material is found during a search. In the absence of such material, the assessment order is beyond jurisdiction, and additions made therein are quashed.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance of depreciation claim to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce evidence. Similarly, the issue of unexplained credit was also remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the pandemic. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits after condoning the delay, following principles of natural justice and considering the liberal view taken by higher courts regarding pandemic delays.
The Tribunal held that the addition of share of profit from the partnership firm was not justified as it is exempt under Section 10(2A) of the Act and also amounts to double taxation. However, the addition for late deposit of PF/ESI contributions was upheld as payments were made beyond the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine health issues of the assessee's partner. However, it upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unsecured loans and service tax credit w/off due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of the CBDT circular was to provide an opportunity for compliance, and the assessee's application was rejected for non-compliance with notices, not for late filing or wrong section. The matter was remanded for fresh determination on merits.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance of depreciation claim to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce evidence. Similarly, the issue of unexplained credit was also remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance and noted that the order was passed without due consideration of submissions. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction for the loan of Rs. 7,00,000. The addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan, including TDS, interest payments, and subsequent repayment. A remand report further confirmed the loan's genuineness, with the lender's director refuting the previous adverse statement. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that no addition under Section 68 is justified when the credit is repaid, and thus, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment order. The primary reason for quashing was the invalidity of the re-opening proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the approval for re-opening was sought on 11/02/2015, but the date of approval was not mentioned, making it unclear if it was obtained before issuing the notice under Section 148. More critically, the AO's reasons for reopening erroneously referred to Section 147(b), which had been deleted from the statute long ago and was not in force for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench's decision in ITA Nos. 92-94/Mum/2019, which held that such an approval was mechanical and cryptic, and the reference to a deleted section rendered the re-opening invalid. The Tribunal also referred to various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including those concerning the mandatory issuance of notice under Section 143(2) in re-assessment proceedings and the non-curable nature of such omissions. Given that the assessment order was quashed due to the invalid re-opening, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the addition under Section 68 or other grounds. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the loan transaction were proved by the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based solely on the statement of a third party without sufficient corroboration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's claim of sufficient cause. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. To provide a last opportunity, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant during appellate proceedings but considered the contention that the assessee has a good case on merit. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided purchase bills, delivery challans, and reconciled purchases with sales. The assessee also explained that no transport charges were incurred as goods were delivered directly. The claim that M/s. Sai Traders' TIN was cancelled was contested with an appellate order from the Sales Tax Department, suggesting the information provided to the AO was incorrect.