Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 5 of 13
The Tribunal held that all grounds raised by the Revenue were covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was followed by the CIT(A). Regarding grounds 1 and 2, it was an admitted fact that MEDA had been granted approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) by the Chief CCIT, Mumbai, which was still valid. Therefore, the AO could not deny the exemption claimed by the assessee. For ground 3, concerning the addition on account of the difference in the Development Fund balance, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CIT(A), which were in accordance with the Tribunal's previous observations. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding on ground 4 that once exemption is granted under Section 10(23C)(iv), there is no limit to the amount of accumulation, and there is no requirement to file trustee resolutions or Form 10 for such accumulation. The only condition is that the accumulated funds must be utilized for the trust's objects within five years. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the utilization of accumulated funds was confirmed. Consequently, all grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the present appeals. Despite several opportunities and adjournments, the assessee did not furnish a proper application with supporting affidavit for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee did not respond to two notices, they fully complied with the show-cause notice. Since the AO considered this compliance while passing the order under Section 147 and did not pass an order under Section 144, the non-compliance did not warrant the penalty.
The Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Ld. Commissioner, concluding that it did not suffer from any perversity, impropriety, or illegality.
The Tribunal held that all grounds raised by the Revenue were covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was followed by the CIT(A). Regarding grounds 1 and 2, it was an admitted fact that MEDA had been granted approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, and this approval was still valid. Therefore, the AO could not deny the exemption claimed by the assessee. For ground 3, concerning the addition on account of the difference in the Development Fund balance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions, which were in line with the Tribunal's previous observations, stating that development funds were not to be treated as income of the assessee. Regarding ground 4, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that once exemption is granted under Section 10(23C)(iv), there is no limit to the amount of accumulation, no requirement to file trustee resolutions for such accumulation, and no need to file Form 10 specifying the purpose of accumulation. The only condition is that accumulated funds must be utilized for the objects of the trust within five years. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the utilization of accumulated funds and re-compute income if necessary was confirmed. Consequently, all grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not provide the details due to the short time granted by the CIT(E), and the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including cash books, balance sheets, and bank statements, demonstrating sufficient funds to explain the cash deposit. The lower authorities erred by making the addition based on assumptions without considering the provided documents.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid and bad in law because the approval for its issuance was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reopening proceedings and the reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that expenses have to be incurred for the purposes of business, not necessarily for earning profit. The allegation that the revenue of the assessee did not match the expenditure incurred was found to be without merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the only considerations are whether the expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and whether they are of a revenue nature. If both answers are yes, the expenses must be allowed irrespective of the quantum of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had discussed each aspect of the expenditure and provided categorical findings of fact, which were not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings. The entire disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently denied operating the bank accounts in question, attributing the transactions to her husband. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the entries and to consider debit entries as well, rather than solely focusing on credit entries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act by producing relevant documents for the share transactions, which were routed through banking channels and held for over a year. Therefore, the addition on account of sale price was unsustainable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was relevant to the issue. The interest income was found to be exempt under Section 10(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and thus the addition was deleted. However, the dividend income addition was confirmed due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, did not file an application for condonation of delay, and also failed to submit the assessment order. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to justify the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had addressed the AO's concerns regarding missing confirmations, discrepancies in investment figures, and non-response to notices.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made all best efforts to deposit the PF contribution on the due dates but was prevented by a technical glitch in the EPFO website. Since the amount was accepted by EPFO without penalty, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS under Section 194LBC on the payment of EIS to the originator. This was because the originator was not an investor in the securitization trust, and the EIS was a distribution of surplus, not income arising from an investment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 20% on unaccounted business receipts. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of incurring expenses for earning such income, making it impractical to provide documentary proof for all such expenses.
The Tribunal, upon perusal of the application, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. Regarding the revenue's submission that restricting the disallowance would result in assessed income lower than returned income, the Tribunal held that there is no prohibition in law against this, citing the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Bhaskar Mitter. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's claim for deduction of interest on delayed payment of TDS/GST, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation (P) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., which held that such interest is not an allowable business expenditure. The issue regarding maintenance expenses was not decided as it was not explicitly addressed in the provided text.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the income element offered by the assessee towards on-money receipts was fairly arrived at based on seized material relating to both receipts and expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the income element offered by the assessee towards on-money receipts was fairly arrived at based on seized material relating to both receipts and expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal confirmed the appeal's duplicate nature, noting that it arose from both physical and e-filing. Concluding that parallel adjudication of duplicate appeals is impermissible, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It relied on Supreme Court judgments which clarified that co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies and not banks acting solely under the Banking Regulation Act for the purpose of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a co-operative society, and the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend earned from other co-operative societies. The disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue failed to present any distinguishing facts to show why the precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessee's own case in AY 2011-12, followed by the CIT(A), should not apply. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 12.50% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal prior to the due date for compliance, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to provide an adequate opportunity for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner also did not properly adjudicate the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
The assessee informed the tribunal that they had opted for the Direct Tax-Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee PF/ESIC contributions was not allowable as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the addition of notional Mark-to-Market gains on forward contracts was deleted, considering the applicability of ICDS-VI and the fact that these gains were reversed in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal restored the application to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and furnish all required information.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of share capital and premium, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based solely on a WhatsApp chat printout seized from a third party's premises, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that the chat evidenced the transaction and the onus was on the assessee to explain it. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that without any corroborative evidence of actual receipt of cash by the assessee, the revenue cannot expect the assessee to substantiate a WhatsApp conversation that occurred among third parties. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including observations from the Supreme Court in Common Cause v. UOI, which held that noting on loose sheets/diaries carries no evidentiary value under Section 34 of the Evidence Act without independent evidence of their trustworthiness. The Tribunal concluded that a mere WhatsApp chat without any supporting material cannot be used as conclusive evidence for making an addition. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The issue of interest under Section 234B was consequently affected by this deletion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal solely based on the timing of document submission without considering the documents filed was not justified. An opportunity of hearing must be provided in letter and spirit.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was correct in finding that the penalty order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's direction to the AO to re-examine the penalty order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that all conditions for exemption under section 11 were met except for the timely filing of the return of income. It restored the matter to the AO to treat the belated return as filed in time and allow the benefit of section 11(2) if other conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on account of undisclosed sale of property as the AO was satisfied with the documentary evidence. The addition on account of unexplained investment was also deleted as the investment was reflected in the balance sheet and P&L. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5% GP.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's application solely on a technical defect, especially without providing any show cause notice or opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the rejection violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the matter afresh and decide the assessee's application on its merits. This reconsideration must include affording the assessee a due opportunity to rectify any errors in the application if required. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the registration itself, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were issued without the proper sanction from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that it is bound to follow its own precedents. The issue in dispute was the set-off of business losses. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the income as per the directions in the referred appellate order and allow the set-off of brought forward unabsorbed business loss, also directing exclusion of section 14A disallowance for computing book profit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a chance to present its claim before the first appellate authority and that interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for consideration. The Tribunal did not express any view on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly cross-examine the lender's director regarding the source of funds, which was stated to be from sale proceeds of Mayur Exports. Since the transaction was recorded in the books and audited financials, and the source was provided, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by deciding the issues on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to a non-functional email for notices. Considering that ends of justice would be met by deciding the issues on merits after a fair opportunity of hearing, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should be given a fair opportunity to comment on the additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly cross-examine the lender's director regarding the source of funds, which was stated to be from sale proceeds of Mayur Exports. Since the transaction was recorded in the books and audited financials, and the source was provided, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) provided a fair and proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on account of undisclosed sale of property as the AO was satisfied with the documentary evidence. The addition on account of unexplained investment was also deleted as the investment was reflected in the balance sheet and P&L. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5% GP.