Loading ITAT cases…
564 orders · Page 5 of 12
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 the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/DRP for management fees was illegal, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal also restored two other grounds related to Section 80G deduction and TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Id. CIT(A) order was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and restored the matter to the Id. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on additional evidence without referring it back to the AO. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication to examine whether the bank account belonged to Mr. Asrani or the assessee firm.
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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), finding it not to be intentional. As the lower authorities had not examined the case on its merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the valid denial of exemption due to non-compliance with re-registration requirements, held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the income should be allowed as a deduction based on principles of taxation. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment of income after allowing such expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order had already been restored by the CIT(A) for fresh assessment. Therefore, the issue of DIN, which was the sole ground of appeal, was also restored to the AO for consideration, ensuring the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be unsustainable as the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) had failed to discuss these evidences and the revenue could not contradict them, thus the assessee had discharged its onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause. Regarding the dismissal in limine by the ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal held that even if notices went un-responded, the appeal should have been decided on merits. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's assurance to attend proceedings and furnish all necessary details if given a second opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The specific additions under Section 68 and Section 69 were not decided on merits by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that there is no prohibition under the Income Tax Act preventing the set off of STCL from STT paid shares against STCG from non-STT paid shares. The assessee is entitled to choose the set-off chronology most beneficial to them.
The tribunal condoned the significant delay, emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present her case. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation in previous proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the issue for AY 2013-14, which formed the basis for the protective addition in AY 2014-15, had been conclusively resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the protective assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's losses were genuine business losses incurred in the regular course of trading, supported by extensive documentary evidence like contract notes, bank statements, and DEMAT statements. It noted that the AO failed to provide investigation reports or demonstrate the assessee's involvement in any price rigging. Therefore, the disallowance of losses and the addition for commission were unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities made ad-hoc disallowances based on general observations without specific defects in bills or vouchers. Considering that similar disallowances were deleted in a prior AY and the nature of the assessee's business requiring cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 2% of total expenses.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31/07/2022 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law. This decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. CBDT and ACIT vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, which followed the same concession. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the resultant assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the addition of Rs. 4 Crores. The grounds raised by the assessee in the cross-objections were allowed, rendering the revenue's appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the Percentage Completion Method but failed to provide complete details for reconciling the difference between declared receipts and Form 26AS entries. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee furnishes all relevant details.
The Tribunal held that indexation benefit for LTCG should be allowed from the date of the agreement to sale, not from the date of possession. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view, allowing 50% of donation under Section 80G out of CSR expenses, was in line with various Tribunal decisions and thus not erroneous. The Pr. CIT's revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause due to the incorrect email addresses used for communication. The impugned ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause due to the incorrect email addresses used for communication. The impugned ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment based on the tax audit report, which was available during the original assessment, was invalid. Furthermore, as the appellant became the owner and put the asset to use for more than six months, they are entitled to full depreciation.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on binding precedents from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding the prospective nature of the explanation to Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify the lower rate of interest charged from related parties compared to unrelated parties. The decisions relied upon by the assessee were found to be misplaced as they dealt with the purpose of expenditure, not the disparity in interest rates.
The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made complete disclosures and the shift in claiming income was due to protracted litigation, and subsequent years saw rental income assessed as business income.
The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made complete disclosures and the shift in claiming income was due to protracted litigation, and subsequent years saw rental income assessed as business income.
The Tribunal held that both the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were bad in law, as they were issued against a company whose name had been struck off and was, therefore, a non-existent entity at the time of issuance. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was annulled.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries and the issues were either decided in favour of the assessee by higher courts or were subject to pending appeals. The Tribunal also noted that issues pertaining to the predecessor bank could not be considered in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a second opportunity to present its case due to circumstances beyond its control, restoring the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made complete disclosures and the shift in claiming income was due to protracted litigation, and subsequent years saw rental income assessed as business income.
The Tribunal held that the issue of CSR expenditure being claimed as a donation u/s 80G is a debatable issue. Therefore, the view taken by the AO during the assessment proceedings was a plausible view, and the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 based on a change of opinion was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, noting that the financial statements and bank records did not support the claim of severe financial crisis. The Tribunal also emphasized that no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the assertion that appeal fees could only be paid after November 2016. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay, dismissing the appeals in limine.
The tribunal, noting no objection from the Ld.DR, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the expression "on the occasion of marriage" in Section 56(2)(vii) cannot be given a restricted meaning. Gifts associated with the event of marriage are covered, regardless of the exact timing of the transaction or fund transfer. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made complete disclosures and the shift in claiming income was due to protracted litigation, and subsequent years saw rental income assessed as business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the restraint order passed under Section 132(3) on 26.03.2021 was invalid. It reasoned that the power under Section 132(3) can only be exercised if there is a practical difficulty in seizing an item, and in this case, the loose papers found were deemed unfit for seizure, indicating no practical impediment. The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in C. Ramaiah Reddy v ACIT, which held that reasons must be recorded for passing a prohibitory order under Section 132(3) and that such orders do not postpone the limitation period. The Tribunal also found the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik applicable, emphasizing that a restraint order does not amount to seizure and cannot extend the time limit for framing an assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the search was effectively concluded on 26.03.2021, and the subsequent panchanama dated 24.05.2021 was merely an inspection, not a valid conclusion of search. Therefore, the assessment orders were held to be barred by limitation under Section 153B of the Act. As the assessment itself was quashed, other grounds were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the issue of claiming CSR expenditure disallowed under section 37(1) as a deduction under section 80G is debatable. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., the Tribunal found that since the issue is debatable and the AO took a plausible view, the PCIT erred in invoking section 263.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was invalid due to violations of Sections 149 and 151 of the Act, as the approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the specified authority. Consequently, the reopening proceedings and the assessment order were quashed. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made under Section 56(2)(viia) as the difference between the DVO's valuation and the consideration paid was less than 10%.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) considered grievances pertaining to AY 2015-16 (referring to additions under Sections 68 and 56(2)(vii)) instead of the specific AY 2022-23 issue regarding the cash deposit. Concluding that the First Appellate Authority decided the appeal on wrong facts, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal based solely on the grounds pertaining to AY 2022-23. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It found that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) did not extend the period of limitation for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. It concluded that a restraint order under Section 132(3) does not extend the period for completing the assessment, and the search was concluded on an earlier date.