Loading ITAT cases…
564 orders · Page 4 of 12
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi had failed to adjudicate two main issues despite detailed submissions, merely reproducing the assessment order and the appellant's submissions on one issue. The Tribunal directed the NFAC Delhi to consider all written submissions, provide an opportunity to the appellant, and pass a speaking order on the unadjudicated issues.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On Ground I (Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)): The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this ground. The facts indicate that the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, and the assessee is in appeal. However, the operative part of the order only mentions the assessee's appeal being allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue's appeal being dismissed, without detailing the outcome of this specific ground. On Ground II (Taxation of Long-Term Capital Gains): The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this ground. The assessee's ground is that these gains should be taxed under section 112, not at normal rates. The operative part of the order does not provide specific relief on this point. On Issue 3 (Expenses incurred on flats/buildings sold in earlier years): The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The reasoning was that the expenses were genuine and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, related to maintaining past projects and complying with statutory requirements like the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and Real Estate Regulations & Development Act. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT v. Bilhari Investment Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not appealed against a similar allowance for AY 2018-19, implying finality on the issue. The disallowance by the AO was based solely on the lack of matching revenue in the current year, which the Tribunal found insufficient to deny deduction. The CIT(A)'s finding in allowing these expenses was upheld. On Additional Ground III (Maintenance expenses): The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was a pure legal issue. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's decision on this ground, but the overall outcome suggests it may have been implicitly allowed or considered as part of the expenses allowed in Issue 3. Operative Directions: The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. The disallowance of Rs. 3,88,56,708/- is reversed.
The Tribunal found that the company had undergone a name change in 1993, and the CIT had subsequently granted approval to the gratuity scheme in the assessee's current name, TechNova Imaging Systems (P) Ltd. Employees Group Gratuity Cumla Scheme, via an order dated 17/04/1995. Thus, the gratuity fund was indeed approved, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption u/s 10(25)(iv).
The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a distinct entity from a co-operative society. Therefore, the exemption provided to co-operative societies for TDS on interest paid to members is not applicable to a co-operative bank paying interest to other co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies. This is based on the exemption provided under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as clarified by the Finance Bill, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was not issued within the 'surviving time limit' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Additionally, the approval for the notice was obtained from the incorrect authority.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not deny the benefit of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the appellant simply because the allotment letter was in his wife's name, as all evidence indicated joint ownership and payment. The surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence supported the appellant's claim of co-ownership.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition based solely on Sales Tax department information was unjustified, especially when the assessee provided documentary evidence of purchases and corresponding sales. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition to 25% of the purchases was found to be reasonable, considering it could be a case of profit suppression.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 240 days, considering the ex-parte nature of the order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 249(4)(b) by the CIT(A) was not justified as the assessee had not filed a return of income and the CIT(A) failed to specify the advance tax amount payable or issue a proper show cause notice. The additions made in the assessment order were also noted to be duplicative.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition. As the appellant opted for VSVS, their appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if VSVS is not accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), even after the insertion of Section 80P(4). The Tribunal noted that cooperative banks, while not eligible for deduction themselves, remain cooperative societies.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the issue of allowing Section 80G deduction for CSR expenses is highly debatable, and co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently taken a view in favor of the assessee on this matter. Therefore, the AO's view was plausible, and the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 jurisdiction amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and restored the original assessment order.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: On Ground 3 (GST inclusion in Section 44B income): The Tribunal held that the GST amount cannot be included in the gross revenue for computing deemed business income under Section 44B(1) of the Act. It relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years, including AY 2020-2021. The addition of INR 4,49,79,547 made by the AO was deleted. This ground was allowed. On Grounds 1 & 2 (Jurisdiction and Time Bar): In view of a letter filed by the assessee on 09/06/2025, these grounds were dismissed as having been rendered academic, as the assessee accepted the assessment proceedings on merits after allowing Ground 3. On Ground 4 (Section 115JB applicability): The Tribunal held that Section 115JB(1) is not applicable to the assessee for AY 2022-2023, in view of Explanation 4A to Section 115JB(1). This was based on identical facts and circumstances in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-2021, where the Tribunal had allowed the ground. This ground was allowed. On Ground 5 (TDS credit): The AO was directed to verify the records and grant credit of TDS as per law. On Ground 6 (Advance Tax credit): The AO was directed to verify the records and grant credit of Advance Tax as per law. On Ground 7 (Interest levy): This ground was disposed of with directions to the AO to adjudicate the issues raised in the assessee's rectification application and re-compute the interest/fee, if any, as per law after giving effect to the Tribunal's order. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. On Ground 8 (Penalty proceedings): Penalty proceedings under Section 270A are separate and independent from assessment proceedings. This ground was disposed of as being premature. The operative direction was to allow the appeal in terms of the decisions on grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the payments, and the TPO had not followed the prescribed methods for determining the arm's length price. The DRP also made general observations without proper examination of the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was in clear violation of Section 149 of the Act and quashed the proceedings as bad in law. Other grounds were not adjudicated upon as the primary legal ground led to quashing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, even under the amended Article 5 of the MLI. The activities of RGA Services were not considered complementary functions of a cohesive business operation in India.
The Tribunal noted that the issue concerning the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) had been decided by several co-ordinate benches. Considering these precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction to the assessee.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and without recording the adjournment request. While granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to substantial rights involved, the ITAT imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee for their casual approach to compliance. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it perverse as it was passed ex-parte despite the assessee filing a reply. The case is remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CPC made a clear mistake apparent from the record by considering the LTCG at double the amount offered by the assessee. Such a mistake was liable to be rectified. As a correction would leave no adjustment in the CPC's order, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) suffers from perversity as it failed to consider the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the condonation application and adjudicate the appeal afresh.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and failed to comply with the previous ITAT remand directions to decide on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's assessment order lacked details on the 'fair market value' basis for disallowance and the CIT(A) made no findings on this issue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case.
The Tribunal noted that an appeal against the original assessment order under Section 143(3) was still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). To avoid prejudice and ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the present appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on April 6, 2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the additions made therein were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and paid the tax. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the issue of Section 80G deduction for CSR expenses and implicitly accepted it. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the findings of the lower authorities regarding the utilization of borrowed funds for fixed assets.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on various coordinate bench decisions and a Gujarat High Court ruling, held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available to cooperative societies for interest earned on investments made with cooperative banks, as these are themselves considered cooperative societies. The appeal was therefore allowed.
The Tribunal determined that the reopening notice issued under Section 148 on 28.06.2021 was beyond the extended time limit of 31.03.2021 as per the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA) and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the initiation of reopening based on this invalid notice rendered all subsequent assessment actions void ab initio. The assessment order was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that the source of funds in the offshore bank account was established to be from a non-resident and not the assessee or his family. Therefore, the addition made to the assessee's income was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The tribunal proceeded ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear. It observed that no supporting documents (such as sales tax/VAT returns, ledger accounts, or revenue details) were filed to substantiate the commencement of business operations, leading to the disallowance of expenses. Finding no new facts to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating a new contention (agricultural land status) not raised during assessment or by the assessee, and without obtaining a remand report from the AO as per Rule 46A. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Jurisdictional AO for de novo consideration, allowing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim genuine expenses incurred for its activities against the interest income. The matter was restored to the AO to re-determine the taxable income after allowing deductions.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had meticulously dealt with the matter and deleted the additions. The CIT(A) observed that CCM is not per se illegal and cited the case of ITO vs. Pat Commodity Services P. Ltd. (Mum) (Trib) where it was held that CCM is not illegal and becomes inevitable due to huge transaction volumes. The CIT(A) further noted that if CCM is done at the end of the day, there is no question of shifting profits and losses. The MCX, the stock exchange, is aware of CCMs and has a penalty mechanism to discourage frequency. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee contended that the AO made the addition based on surmises and conjectures without corroborating evidence and without providing an opportunity to cross-examine brokers. The Tribunal, in its consolidated order, decided to adjudicate all grounds raised by the revenue. The Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it implies a review of the CIT(A)'s order. The operative part of the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition, is reproduced, highlighting the assessee's arguments regarding lack of evidence and opportunity for cross-examination, and the CIT(A)'s reasoning that CCMs are not inherently illegal and can be for genuine errors. The Tribunal's final decision on the appeal is not explicitly stated in the provided portion, but the structure suggests it will either uphold or overturn the CIT(A)'s deletion.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 819 days in filing the appeal could not be condoned. The Tribunal emphasized that the expression 'sufficient cause' requires diligence and cannot include negligence or want of bonafides. Condonation of delay is not an automatic right and requires a valid explanation for each day of delay, demonstrating a reasonable cause. The Supreme Court's decisions in Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority were cited, highlighting that 'sufficient cause' does not include negligent inaction. The Tribunal found that the assessee appeared negligent and did not take appropriate steps to pursue the remedy within the prescribed time. The assessee's overall approach was seen as prolonging the matter. While not finding malafide intent, the Tribunal noted that an individual taxpayer should be more conscious of statutory obligations. The assessee's inconsistent stand on the Section 54 deduction claim further indicated a dilatory attitude. Therefore, the condonation application, being bereft of any 'sufficient cause', was rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on account of delay, and the merits of the case were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.