Loading ITAT cases…
986 orders · Page 9 of 20
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence of share purchase, dematerialization, sale through a registered broker on a stock exchange, and payment of STT. Without corroborative evidence directly linking the assessee to any irregularity, the claim under Section 10(38) could not be discarded. The Tribunal also relied on a previous decision involving the same scrip.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate their explanation for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to continue with its suo motu disallowance of Rs. 9,11,435/- under Section 14A and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to this amount. The addition of disallowance made under Section 14A to book profits under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were issued without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation, as the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for the extended period under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty orders, being consequential to the invalid assessment, were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the DSIR's approval of the R&D facility, not the specific expenditure amount, was the primary criterion for Section 35(2AB). However, expenditure disallowed under Section 35(2AB) could still be eligible for deduction under Sections 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) if independently satisfied.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the lack of effective participation by the assessee in reassessment proceedings and the need for detailed factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired rights in the property upon allotment in 2016, and the subsequent registration for a mortgage loan did not trigger Section 56(2)(x). The addition made by the AO was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The average value of investments for disallowance computation should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were professional in nature, correctly falling under Section 44ADA, and that the entire remuneration received by the partner from the firm is taxable in their hands, irrespective of disallowances at the firm's level.
The Tribunal held that observations made by the CIT(Exemption) making the registration and approval conditional on a future Supreme Court challenge were unsustainable. A judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding, and a contemplated appeal does not dilute its force. The caveats were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the substantive grounds were not considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice over technical lapses. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation, considering the provisos to Section 149(1). The Tribunal also noted that the escaped income was below the monetary limit prescribed for certain provisions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the view of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay and other High Courts that supported this position.
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeals due to substantial and unexplained delays, noting the casual approach in filing condonation petitions. However, the penalty appeals were allowed as the notices issued under section 271(1)(c) were found to be omnibus and lacked specificity, thus vitiating the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,500/- for the delay.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from short-term deposits, when not immediately required for lending to members, is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. Therefore, such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the grievance raised in the appeal no longer survived as the registration and approval were granted. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the error was a bona fide human error due to clerical transposition, not an intention to conceal income. Therefore, the conditions for levying penalty under Section 270A(9) were not satisfied.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on Nostro accounts and placements with its head office and overseas branches is not taxable as it is a transaction with itself, governed by the principle of mutuality. However, the taxability of interest from other overseas banks was also discussed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issue of registration had been resolved by the grant of exemption. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeals due to substantial and unexplained delays, noting the casual approach in filing condonation petitions. However, the penalty appeals were allowed as the notices issued under section 271(1)(c) were found to be omnibus and lacked specificity, thus vitiating the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in the context of a new faceless regime. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their primary onus by providing evidence of share purchase through banking channels, dematerialized shares, sale through a registered broker, and payment of STT. The lower authorities failed to bring any specific adverse evidence against the assessee or their broker regarding price manipulation.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in these appeals were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the current appeals were disposed of based on those prior findings.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regularization was not deliberate and the assessee had a bonafide belief. The Tribunal also noted the recent amendment allowing the CIT(E) to condone delays. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regularization was not deliberate and the assessee had a bonafide belief. The Tribunal also noted the recent amendment allowing the CIT(E) to condone delays. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and excel sheet data, without independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to undisclosed investment, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not provided with the material or an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal noted that the grievance raised in the appeal no longer survived as the registration and approval were granted. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issue of registration had been resolved by the grant of exemption. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bona fide reasons and the assessee's continuous pursuit of alternate remedies. The Tribunal then adjudicated the issue on merits and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption under section 11.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's request for adjournment. The appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement could not be materialized.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on March 24, 2021, for AY 2013-14 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent proceedings were quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal held that rejection of a Section 12AB application should not be based solely on procedural defaults without examining the trust's objects and activities. It emphasized the need for adherence to natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the source of cash withdrawals was explained and established. The revenue failed to prove that the cash deposits were from an undisclosed source or that the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the restoration of the quantum appeal. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal observed that the authorities below did not doubt the documents submitted by the assessee, who had transacted in shares about 12 years prior and still held remaining shares. Therefore, the genuineness of the shareholding and the sale of shares could not be doubted.
The Tribunal held that the TPO disregarded the TNMM without bringing on record comparable uncontrolled transactions as mandated by law. The adjustment suggested by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP was found to be arbitrary and ad-hoc, lacking justification.