Loading ITAT cases…
715 orders · Page 3 of 15
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 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 found that the CIT(A)'s order appeared to be ex-parte as there was no mention of the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 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 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) and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Considering the similar case of the assessee's brother where the matter was set aside, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the proof of registration under Section 12AA. The CIT(E) rejected the application without considering these documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenditure duly recorded in books and paid through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69C merely due to the Assessing Officer's dissatisfaction with commercial expediency. The addition for CSR expenditure was also deleted as it resulted in double disallowance.
The Tribunal held that while the entire purchase value could not be disallowed, an addition representing the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases was warranted. The addition was estimated at 8% of the disputed purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the appeal as filed was not maintainable because the grounds of appeal in Form 36 did not match the authorization memo. The authorization was for Section 14A, but the grounds in Form 36 were for Section 68, and vice versa.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient and bona fide cause. It held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration under sections 12AB and 80G, the grounds raised in the appeals challenging the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee filed its return within the extended due date and that Section 80AC was not applicable for AY 2014-15. It also relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting the eligibility of interest income from co-operative banks for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting disallowance under Section 14A to investments that actually yielded exempt income was in consonance with settled legal position. The Revenue failed to controvert the finding that exempt income arose solely from one investment.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence was produced by the assessee which required factual verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence. The AO failed to provide direct material linking the assessee to any manipulation or unaccounted benefit, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind by the AO. The addition of cash sales was also questioned due to lack of proper verification and the assessee's submission of supporting documents. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash credits were trade liabilities from a consortium partner and not unexplained cash credits. It also found that the liaisoning expenses were for business purposes and supported by valid documentation, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to the property purchase, finding it was inherited and thus exempt. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition concerning the capital gains mismatch, agreeing that it was an apparent and reconcilable discrepancy.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding no cogent evidence of actual commission payment beyond the regular brokerage already accounted for. The Tribunal noted that assumptions without supporting material cannot justify invoking Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained as the reassessment proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal found no independent incriminating material to support the cash loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, the penalty cannot survive independently. Therefore, the penalty issue should also be restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal against the penalty order was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance. The assessee's cross-objection challenged the validity of proceedings under section 153C and consequential penalty.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the CIT(E) had already granted the registration and approval following a High Court decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the failure to obtain prior permission from the Charity Commissioner is a procedural lapse, not a substantial breach, especially since the assessee has since applied for post-facto approval. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the CIT(E) had already granted the registration and approval following a High Court decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that once the addition for unsecured loans under Section 68 was deleted in an earlier year, the consequential disallowance of interest on those loans in subsequent years could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the trust is predominantly engaged in charitable activities like education and relief to the poor. The income from letting out the hall is incidental and applied towards charitable objects, thus not attracting Section 11(4A) or the proviso to Section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee had raised substantial issues regarding the validity of reopening and principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee's failure to mention Section 12A registration was an inadvertent error, and the trust is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that the addition was solely based on unverified and uncorroborated material like loose papers and Excel sheets. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found such additions unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration under sections 12AB and 80G, the grounds raised in the appeals challenging the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot be sustained as the reassessment proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, were previously quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Tribunal noted the lack of independent incriminating material and relied on prior decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessment was also completed ex-parte. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal, considering the lack of sufficient material and submissions from the assessee, decided to grant one last opportunity to substantiate its claim. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the failure to obtain prior permission from the Charity Commissioner is a procedural lapse, not a substantial breach, especially since the assessee has since applied for post-facto approval. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the lack of sufficient material and submissions from the assessee, decided to grant one last opportunity to substantiate its claim. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that derivative transactions constitute the assessee's sole business activity. Therefore, profits and losses from these transactions should be treated as a single composite business and allowed to be set off against each other.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 10AB was legally unsustainable, especially for long-standing institutions. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 270A was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not made aware of the exact allegation against them, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals as the grievance raised had been redressed by the subsequent order of the CIT(Exemptions).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain judgments was misplaced as they did not cover off-market transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not conducted factual verification regarding the non-confrontation of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the lack of sufficient material and submissions from the assessee, decided to grant one last opportunity to substantiate its claim. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not attracted because the loan transactions, though alleged to be accommodation entries, were recorded in the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.