Loading ITAT cases…
564 orders · Page 1 of 12
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the return within the extended period under section 139(4) and that the restriction under Chapter VIA, as per section 80AC, pertains only to Part C. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow deductions under Part A and Part B of Chapter VIA and also to allow credit for tax already paid.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and could not be attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the surcharge should be computed based on the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act, not on the MMR. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was incorrect.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s restriction to 4.40% to be erroneous as it did not fully consider the AO's findings on the non-linkage of purchases to sales. However, the Tribunal also determined that the AO's initial 20% disallowance was on the higher side. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to 10% of the total value to ensure fairness and prevent revenue leakage.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the return within the extended period under section 139(4) and that the restriction under Chapter VIA, as per section 80AC, pertains only to Part C. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow deductions under Part A and Part B of Chapter VIA and also to allow credit for tax already paid.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish how the assessee's case fell under the specific instances of misreporting defined in Section 270A(9). The incorrect claim was withdrawn suo moto by the assessee and did not fall under any of the specified clauses for misreporting.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 10A disallowance, finding that the assessee's units qualified for the deduction based on previous favorable rulings. Regarding common expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the matter following the procedure laid down in earlier years' orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrably established cultivation through hired labour and local farmers, satisfying the legal test for agricultural income. The PCIT's conclusion that no agricultural activity was undertaken was not borne out by the material on record.
The Tribunal observed that the property was purchased in FY 2013-14, but the agreement was in FY 2016-17. The actual payment was made in FY 2015-16. The matter was set back to the AO to verify the actual payment date and apply the stamp duty value accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the IRP, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings to be valid, additions must be made on the very issue that formed the basis of the reasons to believe, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Since no addition was made on the primary issue that triggered the reassessment in both assessment years, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation at the enhanced rate of 30% on cranes. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prasad Multi Services (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which in turn referred to its earlier decision in Gujco Carriers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. These judgments established that mobile cranes, registered as heavy motor vehicles, clearly fall within the expression 'motor lorries' or 'motor trucks' as per Entry III E(1A) of Appendix 1 to Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, when used in the business of running them on hire. The Tribunal also noted that registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a sine qua non for claiming depreciation, and ownership for depreciation purposes is construed in terms of real, beneficial ownership. The Tribunal found that the assessee was both the legal and registered owner of the cranes. The disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had disallowed all expenses debited to the Profit & Loss Account in its computation of income and had not earned any exempt income, the provisions of Section 14A were not attracted. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances made under Section 153A were unsustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for charter hire and victualling expenses, finding the comparisons made by the AO to be unscientific and the disallowances ad-hoc.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be sustained in a case where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal noted that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee earned no exempt income during the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal relied on the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., which held that in the absence of any exempt income, the question of invoking Section 14A does not arise. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that no substantial question of law arose from the findings of lower authorities when no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that Section 14A envisages actual receipt of income not includible in total income. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable only to the transfer of land or building or both, and not to the transfer of leasehold rights. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was not valid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated on the key issues raised by the assessee, including the condonation of delay and the scope of adjustments permissible under Section 143(1). Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances made under Section 153A were unsustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for charter hire and victualling expenses, finding the comparisons made by the AO to be unscientific and the disallowances ad-hoc.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for business of banking was not allowable. However, the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from investments with co-operative societies was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances made under Section 153A were unsustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for charter hire and victualling expenses, finding the comparisons made by the AO to be unscientific and the disallowances ad-hoc.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was also rejected for identical reasons, and that matter had been restored to the CIT(E) by a coordinate bench for a fresh decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the present appeal for Section 80G approval to the CIT(E), granting the assessee liberty to file an amended MOA/objects clause for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances made under Section 153A were unsustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for charter hire and victualling expenses, finding the comparisons made by the AO to be unscientific and the disallowances ad-hoc.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to make requisite compliance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on grounds different from those that formed the basis of the 'reason to believe' and the consequent issuance of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal relied on the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) Limited, which states that if no addition is made on the issue which constitutes the foundation of the reopening, the AO cannot make additions on any other issue independently. In this case, the reasons recorded for reopening pertained to share premium from M/s Mangal Sago Pvt. Ltd. and alleged accommodation entries from Shri Anil Kumar Khemka. However, the reassessment order ultimately made additions concerning share premium from other parties and advances, and disallowances under Section 14A and for F&O loss, without making any addition on the specific grounds that led to the reopening. Therefore, the Tribunal found the additions unsustainable in law, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings legally infirm. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The remaining grounds challenging the merits of the additions were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous. No finding was given on the merits of the additions in either assessment year.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically attract penalty. The Assessing Officer failed to record specific satisfaction regarding concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the show cause notice lacked specificity.
The Tribunal held that Section 71(2) allows set-off of business losses against income from any head, including capital gains, without a prescribed sequence. It also found that deductions under Chapter VI-A are permissible from gross total income, which can include income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had conducted proper inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding the merger and acquisition expenses. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents emphasizing that Section 263 requires an order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and that it cannot be invoked when there are two possible views or when the AO has made a reasonable inquiry.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance during both the assessment and appellate stages. Given the lack of response and the earlier dismissal by the CIT(A), the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances made under Section 153A were unsustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for charter hire and victualling expenses, finding the comparisons made by the AO to be unscientific and the disallowances ad-hoc.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation regarding the delay and non-appearance before the lower authorities due to professional commitments and health issues. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including a housing loan from HDFC Bank and personal savings from NRE account, to substantiate the source of funds for the property purchase. The lower authorities were incorrect in making the addition under Section 69A of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's submissions and decide the application after affording an opportunity of being heard, also examining the scope of inquiry at the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, supported by an affidavit and medical evidence. The delay was condoned, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal held that derivatives are distinct from shares and should be taxed under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, meaning gains from their alienation are not taxable in India. The AO's denial of treaty benefits for derivatives was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentary evidence, including purchase bills, bank statements, supplier's affidavit, and stock registers. The AO had not conducted independent inquiry to contradict this evidence and had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal held that merely trading in shares alleged to be penny stock does not automatically render the transaction bogus, especially when the assessee is a regular investor and has provided documentary evidence. The AO did not record adverse findings against the submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as it was effective from AY 2014-15. Additions related to deemed rent were remanded to the AO for recomputation. Additions related to loans were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee's explanation, though lacking procedural diligence, was not tainted with mala fides or indifference. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that when information is found during a search on a third party and pertains to the assessee, Section 153C is the mandatory procedure, not Section 147. Invoking Section 147 in such circumstances is without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society from TDS, provided the payer's turnover does not exceed Rs. 50 crores. The matter was restored to the AO to verify this turnover threshold.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The Tribunal noted that the taxability of the impugned receipts was a debatable issue, as evidenced by the facts and the assessee's detailed note on why the receipts were not taxable. The assessee had disclosed all relevant details in its return. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which held that penalty cannot be levied when an issue is debatable. The Tribunal further observed that a mere claim made in the return, which is not accepted by the Revenue, does not by itself attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the third ground regarding the AO's failure to indicate the specific limb for penalty proceedings, as the primary ground for deletion was the debatable nature of the issue.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-work the disallowance under Section 14A considering only investments that yielded exempt income. It also allowed the provision for employee costs as a business expenditure, holding it was an ascertained liability. The AO was directed to verify and correct the book profit computation.
The Tribunal held that the order issued by the PCIT under Section 263 was bad in law as it was passed without issuing a show cause notice and without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.