Loading ITAT cases…
715 orders · Page 2 of 15
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not properly examined the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that both reassessment and appellate proceedings were ex-parte due to extraordinary circumstances like liquidation of a subsidiary and loss of access to records. It emphasized that substantial issues should be decided on merits after a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. Delay in filing Form 67 does not extinguish the right to claim FTC. The AO was directed to examine and allow the FTC.
The Tribunal, following its own precedents and High Court decisions, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The deduction was allowed, subject to verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had prima facie discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing relevant documents and subsequently repaying the loans with TDS. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments stating that if loan givers' identity is shown and loans are repaid, no addition can be made.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the issue with identical facts had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by appellate authorities in previous years, and that the Revenue's appeals were pending before the High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts and legal principles, while the Assessing Officer's additions were based on presumptions rather than tangible material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts and legal principles, while the Assessing Officer's additions were based on presumptions rather than tangible material.
The Tribunal held that while the suppliers were found to be non-genuine, the assessee's corresponding sales were not disputed, and quantitative details were maintained. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that trade margins are not commission, ESOP taxation arises on exercise, and interest on delayed payments to MSMEs is not covered under Section 194A. Therefore, the assessee is not an 'assessee in default'.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to prove the loan was genuine and outstanding from earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was invalid as it violated Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and the proceedings were initiated after 3 years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of hearing both parties and decided to allow the assessee one last opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad hoc addition of 15% of cash sales was arbitrary and unsustainable as the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected. The addition was made without any adverse material or cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, filing of Form 10B was directory, not mandatory, as the relevant amendment came into effect from AY 2018-19. Therefore, exemption could not be denied solely for delayed filing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions related to the sale of shares. Relying on previous decisions concerning the same scrip, the Tribunal set aside the additions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the Section 80P deduction claim after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and verifying evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans and sundry creditors, and the AO failed to rebut this evidence. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was limited to the extent of exempt income earned, as per established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the AO for considering a valuation report obtained by the assessee. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to be heard, and the AO was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3 crore loan transaction was supported by documentary evidence and repayment, and the AO failed to rebut it. For the Rs. 40 lakh share sale, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as it relied solely on a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. It relied on a coordinate bench's ruling that M/s. Excel Castronics Ltd. was not a penny stock company and that the assessee's transactions were genuine, supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment and initial payment is relevant for determining the property's value for tax purposes, not the later registration date. The increase in flat area due to building plan amendments did not alter the fundamental rights accrued to the assessee at the time of allotment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans and sundry creditors, and the AO failed to rebut this evidence. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was limited to the extent of exempt income earned, as per established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3 crore loan transaction was supported by documentary evidence and repayment, and the AO failed to rebut it. For the Rs. 40 lakh share sale, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as it relied solely on a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and without properly verifying the filing timeline. The Tribunal also noted that similar purchases had been taxed in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, with the ITAT having restricted the disallowance to 3%.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned. It also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on employee benefits, travelling, and manpower expenses, and allowed software expenses as revenue expenditure. However, the issue of rent expenses was remanded for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, and the Revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove them. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from school bus services, uniforms, and books were incidental to the trust's dominant educational object and not business income. Therefore, they were eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence to prove the assessee's involvement in price rigging. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that shares were held for 8 years solely to book a desired loss, especially since the assessee had a history of regular investment and the transactions were documented.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. It relied on a coordinate bench's ruling that M/s. Excel Castronics Ltd. was not a penny stock company and that the assessee's transactions were genuine, supported by evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged the initial onus and that non-response to Section 133(6) notices did not override documentary evidence. For Section 41(1), the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the timing of payments to creditors.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to foreign currency fluctuation loss, finding that the net impact was already offered to tax. It also allowed the ground regarding interest and fee computation for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute. The ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the advancement of cash loans by the assessee and that the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also found that the reassessment notice for AY 2017-18 was issued without proper approval under Section 151(ii), vitiating the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the advancement of cash loans by the assessee and that the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also found that the reassessment notice for AY 2017-18 was issued without proper approval under Section 151(ii), vitiating the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the genuineness of the loan transaction by providing documentary evidence, including confirmation from the lender, and that the entire transaction was through banking channels. The loan was also repaid within the same year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and confirmation from the bank, to prove that the loan was advanced through banking channels and not in cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claims afresh. The assessee is allowed to furnish necessary evidence to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including day-wise cash book, sales register, stock statements, and VAT returns, to substantiate the cash deposits. The AO had not rejected the books of account, and the sales were accepted in VAT returns.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence for the entire amount, a reasonable cash balance of Rs. 2,00,000 could be presumed. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was reduced by this amount.
The Tribunal held that section 154 is for rectifying apparent mistakes and not for rewriting the original return or making fresh claims. The assessee's application was filed beyond the limitation period and sought substantial recomputation, which is outside the scope of section 154.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was not justified as the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence for commission payments. Mere denial by customers without independent inquiry with agents is insufficient to disallow the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of claimed long-term capital gains was factually incorrect as the assessee had declared a short-term capital loss. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the transactions, and the revenue failed to provide contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the sanction was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 151(ii) for notices issued after three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence to substantiate the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), subject to a cost deposit by the assessee. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was non-speaking and lacked specific reasons, failing to demonstrate proper application of mind. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's business activities and cash book, and the revenue failed to provide contrary material. The addition under Section 69A was unjustified as the business receipts and turnover were not doubted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on a technical ground of limitation without properly examining the assessee's explanation of inadvertent filing and the institution's historical registration status. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.