Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal held that the ancillary support services were not FTS as they were ancillary to the sale of software and did not 'make available' technical knowledge. The AO's findings were not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loans and the interest paid thereon by producing relevant documents. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(NFAC) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, relying on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was not obtained from the appropriate authority as per section 151. Furthermore, the notice was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the differential amount was Rs. 3,91,000/-, which was not more than the 10% tolerance limit introduced in Section 56(2)(x)(b)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable and deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the remittances at the rate of 11.54% was in consonance with the governing section and supported by case laws. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits, even if the assessee did not appear. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her prima facie onus by filing relevant documents proving the genuineness of the transaction. The authorities below had not doubted or rebutted these documents, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to make submissions on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the first appellate authority for a de novo adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not provide a reasoned and speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal emphasized that even with non-compliant assessee, the appellate authority must pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed as withdrawn, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had informed the department of an address change, but notices were still sent to the old address. Relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that additions should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire bogus purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that while Section 14A is attracted even if there is a loss from a partnership firm, the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of income that does not form part of total income. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the disallowance to the actual loss incurred from the partnership was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, which fixed the consideration and was supported by part payment, fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Therefore, the stamp duty value as on the date of the allotment letter should be considered, not the value at the time of registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, relying on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked for the purchase of stock-in-trade. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify if the asset was held as stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bad debts and advances written off, finding them to be valid business expenses. However, the issue of transponder charges was not fully adjudicated in the provided text.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., held that since the assessee had already made a suo moto disallowance which was pari materia similar to and greater than the amount computable under Rule 8D, no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The additional disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish Form 26A and proof of tax payment by the deductees to avail the benefit of the proviso to Section 201(1). The issue of TDS on capitalized expenses was also noted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not properly filed due to the lack of signature and verification on the appeal form and grounds of appeal, despite multiple opportunities to rectify the defects.
The Tribunal found factual deficiencies in the assessee's explanation and the evidence provided. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo verification.
The Tribunal held that investments held as stock-in-trade should be excluded from the computation of disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of closing stock at 1% was arbitrary and unsustainable as the assessee had provided complete details and the AO had not rejected the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IC is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. The failure to file it within the prescribed time should not deny the benefit of Section 115BAA if substantive conditions are met.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that evidence for the expenses and loan transaction was available and could be presented to the AO, allowing for proper verification of capital gains and interest claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the documents and submissions filed by the assessee on merits. The matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after considering all documents and submissions, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for the Revenue's appeal, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,012/- under section 68, alleging failure to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. However, notices under section 133(6) were complied with, transactions were through banking channels, and creditworthiness was substantiated with income-tax returns and financial statements for 14 investors. The Ld. CIT(A) found these conditions satisfied. The Tribunal found no perversity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the deletion of Rs. 4,25,01,740/-. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal noted the submission of the NRI investor's bank statement, evidencing investment through proper banking channels, which is critical for section 68. The Tribunal considered this additional evidence meritorious and remanded the issue concerning the NRI investor's investment of Rs. 74,98,262/- to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh verification. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully. The ratio is that while the initial burden under section 68 lies with the assessee, the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, if found meritorious, can lead to a remand for proper verification, especially when it addresses a critical aspect like banking channels for investment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to his file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate all grounds afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The Tribunal noted an initial ambiguity in the AO's notices regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied, which vitiated the proceedings. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts concerning the interest expenditure claim. The disallowance arose from a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of interest under Section 36(1)(iii), specifically whether the asset acquisition constituted business extension or expansion. The Tribunal considered the claim not to be ex facie false or baseless, and the AO had not provided material to demonstrate concealment or inaccurate particulars. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that mere disallowance of a claim, even if unsustainable, does not automatically attract penalty if the claim is bona fide and all particulars are disclosed. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal should be dismissed. It noted that the AO had issued notices under section 133(6) which were duly complied with, and the transactions were routed through banking channels. The assessee had substantiated the creditworthiness of 14 investors by furnishing their income-tax returns and financial statements, satisfying the conditions under section 68. The deletion of Rs. 4,25,01,740/- by the CIT(A) was upheld as there was no perversity in its findings. Regarding the assessee's appeal concerning the NRI investor, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had now furnished the bank statement evidencing the investment through proper banking channels. The Tribunal considered this additional evidence to be meritorious and remanded the issue of the investment made by Mr. Rajivkumar Shyamsundar Kedia to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh verification, with directions for the assessee to cooperate. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions by furnishing documentary evidence. The AO could not solely rely on the Investigation Wing's report while ignoring the assessee's cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The addition was based solely on images and loose paper notings from a third-party device, which were not authored by or recovered from the assessee. The CIT(A) correctly noted the lack of primary evidence, corroborative material, and compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the assessee's prayer. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the duplicate appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a liberal consideration of the condonation petition. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that the assessee's explanation, given the circumstances, constituted sufficient cause for delay.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
For AY 2022-23, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, following the Bombay High Court's judgment which condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. For AY 2023-24, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the outcome of the pending condonation application.
For AY 2022-23, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, following the Bombay High Court's judgment. For AY 2023-24, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to await the decision on the condonation of delay application for Form 10B.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The conditions for this deduction are met as the investments were with co-operative banks.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the submission that the present appeals were inadvertently registered duplicates. Consequently, ITA No.6458/MUM/2025 and ITA No.6457/MUM/2025 were dismissed as duplicate appeals. The original appeals were noted to be adjourned to 21/01/2026.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order, following Supreme Court pronouncements that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-2016 are invalid. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the notice was issued after the prescribed period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied both conditions for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the income was by way of interest from investments with other co-operative societies. The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that GST collected by the assessee on behalf of the government is not to be included in the taxable income under Section 44BB. This is because GST is a statutory levy collected in a fiduciary capacity and not part of the consideration for the carriage of goods or services.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the submission that the present appeals were inadvertently registered duplicates. Consequently, ITA No.6458/MUM/2025 and ITA No.6457/MUM/2025 were dismissed as duplicate appeals. The original appeals were noted to be adjourned to 21/01/2026.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect understanding that no submissions were filed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed adjudication of the appeal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions by furnishing documentary evidence. The AO could not solely rely on the Investigation Wing's report while ignoring the assessee's cogent evidence.
Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal remanded the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and directed to file all relevant submissions and documents, with a warning that no leniency will be shown for future defaults.
The Tribunal, applying the principle of substantial justice and recognizing the assessee's bona fide belief and efforts, condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed by treating purchases as non-genuine, based on evidence from the search action. The modus operandi involved fictitious transactions and accommodation entries for bogus sales and unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned following a justice-oriented and liberal approach, as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on capital gains, providing a last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the requisite satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D, as mandated by Section 14A(2). The AO's observation that the suo moto disallowance was low was considered a sweeping remark without proper justification.