Loading ITAT cases…
1,140 orders · Page 11 of 23
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,042/- on account of Mark to Market loss, following the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where similar instructions were considered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited financial statements and found that the assessee possessed sufficient own funds in excess of investments, thus deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,60,742/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) followed judicial precedents and restricted the computation to investments relevant for exempt income, sustaining a balance amount of Rs. 36,70,228/- after reducing the suo motu disallowance. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to controvert these factual findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances. The assessee's appeal on the same issue was dismissed as it was an alternative grievance that did not survive adjudication. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings on the transfer pricing issues concerning Rating Support Fees and Episodic Support Fees, as these grounds were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment's conclusion. However, the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals on these grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the protection of section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his lack of awareness and the circumstances surrounding the operation of his e-filing account was considered by a coordinate bench in quantum proceedings, which condoned the delay in filing appeals. Although condonation of delay does not automatically lead to penalty deletion, the Tribunal found these circumstances to be relevant evidence for establishing reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that nothing was brought on record to suggest that the assessee's explanation was false or that the non-compliance was deliberate or contumacious. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case, a coordinate bench had cancelled penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) on identical facts for other assessment years. Respectfully following that decision and independently considering the reasonable cause established, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) and sustained by the learned CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee in all appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the protection of section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his lack of awareness and the circumstances surrounding the operation of his e-filing account was considered by a coordinate bench in quantum proceedings, which condoned the delay in filing appeals. Although condonation of delay does not automatically lead to penalty deletion, the Tribunal found these circumstances to be relevant evidence for establishing reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that nothing was brought on record to suggest that the assessee's explanation was false or that the non-compliance was deliberate or contumacious. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case, a coordinate bench had cancelled penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) on identical facts for other assessment years. Respectfully following that decision and independently considering the reasonable cause established, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) and sustained by the learned CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee in all appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,042/- on account of Mark to Market loss, following the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where similar instructions were considered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited financial statements and found that the assessee possessed sufficient own funds in excess of investments, thus deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,60,742/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) followed judicial precedents and restricted the computation to investments relevant for exempt income, sustaining a balance amount of Rs. 36,70,228/- after reducing the suo motu disallowance. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to controvert these factual findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances. The assessee's appeal on the same issue was dismissed as it was an alternative grievance that did not survive adjudication. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings on the transfer pricing issues concerning Rating Support Fees and Episodic Support Fees, as these grounds were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment's conclusion. However, the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals on these grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the protection of section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his lack of awareness and the circumstances surrounding the operation of his e-filing account was considered by a coordinate bench in quantum proceedings, which condoned the delay in filing appeals. Although condonation of delay does not automatically lead to penalty deletion, the Tribunal found these circumstances to be relevant evidence for establishing reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that nothing was brought on record to suggest that the assessee's explanation was false or that the non-compliance was deliberate or contumacious. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case, a coordinate bench had cancelled penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) on identical facts for other assessment years. Respectfully following that decision and independently considering the reasonable cause established, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) and sustained by the learned CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee in all appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that insurance claims are operational receipts directly related to manufacturing and eligible for Section 80-IC deduction. Provisions for doubtful debts and sundry creditors written back are also eligible as they represent a reduction in operational expenses. However, penalties on vendors were considered unrelated to direct manufacturing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, thereby attracting the protection of section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his lack of awareness and the circumstances surrounding the operation of his e-filing account was considered by a coordinate bench in quantum proceedings, which condoned the delay in filing appeals. Although condonation of delay does not automatically lead to penalty deletion, the Tribunal found these circumstances to be relevant evidence for establishing reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that nothing was brought on record to suggest that the assessee's explanation was false or that the non-compliance was deliberate or contumacious. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case, a coordinate bench had cancelled penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) on identical facts for other assessment years. Respectfully following that decision and independently considering the reasonable cause established, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) and sustained by the learned CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee in all appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not validly served as it was sent to incorrect addresses and affixed at a locked room without establishing the assessee's connection. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner did not err in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reasoning was that it is undisputed that the quantum additions, which formed the very foundation of the impugned penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in its detailed order dated 12.02.2026. The Tribunal's ratio decidendi is that since the foundation of the penalty has ceased to exist, the consequential penalty cannot independently survive. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the Ld. Commissioner's order. The Tribunal dismissed the lead appeal and, by extension, the remaining three appeals filed by the Revenue, as the facts, issues, and grounds were identical. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the information used for reopening pertained to a different assessee, indicating a non-application of mind by the authorities. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the registration/approval had already been granted, and the assessee was aggrieved only by the stipulation. The Tribunal noted that the judgment in The Chamber of Tax Consultants had not been challenged as of the date of the order. Relying on a co-ordinate bench order in Keshavlal Vajechand Kapadia Charity Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), the Tribunal directed that the registration/approval granted to the appellant shall operate without any stipulation, restriction, or conditional rider. The impugned stipulation was ordered to be deleted. The reasoning was that the registration/approval under Section 12AB is intended to facilitate donations and allow donors to claim benefits. A conditional stipulation undermines this purpose. The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench decision, finding no factual or legal distinction. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,042/- on account of Mark to Market loss, following the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where similar instructions were considered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited financial statements and found that the assessee possessed sufficient own funds in excess of investments, thus deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,60,742/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) followed judicial precedents and restricted the computation to investments relevant for exempt income, sustaining a balance amount of Rs. 36,70,228/- after reducing the suo motu disallowance. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to controvert these factual findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances. The assessee's appeal on the same issue was dismissed as it was an alternative grievance that did not survive adjudication. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings on the transfer pricing issues concerning Rating Support Fees and Episodic Support Fees, as these grounds were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment's conclusion. However, the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals on these grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,75,042/- on account of Mark to Market loss, following the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where similar instructions were considered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited financial statements and found that the assessee possessed sufficient own funds in excess of investments, thus deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,60,742/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld. CIT(A) followed judicial precedents and restricted the computation to investments relevant for exempt income, sustaining a balance amount of Rs. 36,70,228/- after reducing the suo motu disallowance. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to controvert these factual findings. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances. The assessee's appeal on the same issue was dismissed as it was an alternative grievance that did not survive adjudication. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings on the transfer pricing issues concerning Rating Support Fees and Episodic Support Fees, as these grounds were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment's conclusion. However, the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeals on these grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the professional expenditure incurred was for the purpose of the assessee's business and allowed the deletion of the disallowance. It also held that interest under Section 234C was not leviable on performance fees as they could not be reasonably estimated in advance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The reasoning was that the assessee had filed a fresh application before the CIT (Exemptions) along with condonation papers for consideration on merit. The CIT (Exemptions) had already commenced proceedings on this new application, making the present appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order if the need arises subsequently. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on any of the hearing dates and did not file any written submissions or corroborative details against the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without recording findings on the statutory conditions of Section 94(7) and relied on fresh material without remand, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 46A. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the order of the CIT(A) was passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of response. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, but the adjudication on merits was deferred.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as they were out of accepted cash sales, which were already considered for determining business profit. It was also noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to discharge the onus to prove fictitious cash sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to an exemption from deduction of tax at source under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning interest amounts paid to its depositors who are non-member co-operative societies. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's interpretation of Section 194A(3)(v). The High Court held that the legislature's intention was to grant co-operative banks the benefit of exemption from Section 194A(1) in respect of interest payments to non-member co-operative societies, as the second part of clause (v) does not exclude co-operative banks. This interpretation was fortified by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015, specifically paragraph 42.7, which clarified that the existing exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) from TDS on interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society shall continue to apply to a co-operative bank. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS on such interest payments. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned orders and answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal. The primary ground for withdrawal was that the trust had already been granted registration on 04.05.2026. The assessee's counsel also pointed out a discrepancy regarding the listing of a related appeal before a coordinate bench. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised in the appeal, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the assessee's withdrawal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without appreciating the surrounding circumstances and material evidencing the sham nature of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee discharged the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness based solely on routine documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was based on an incorrect premise that no enquiry was conducted and that the PCIT had enlarged the issues beyond the show-cause notice. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was based on incorrect facts as the Section 12AB registration was actually granted. Therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority as per Section 151 of the Act, given the time elapsed since the end of the assessment year. This vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to inactive communication channels. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the penalty appeal on merits, considering the outcome of the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable to properties purchased through a public auction. The auction price, determined through competitive bidding, represents the fair market value, especially for distressed assets.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs retained their character as debt instruments and allowed the deduction of interest. It also found no force in the addition of notional interest on receivables, allowing the related grounds.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was without jurisdiction as the addition made was unrelated to the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method lacked statutory foundation and did not conform to the Guidance Note, as it included unsold areas and an assumed profit margin. The addition was directed to be deleted as it did not represent income accrued during the year.
The Tribunal held that losses accumulated at the investment fund level as of March 31, 2019, are deemed losses of the unit holder under Section 115UB(2A). Therefore, the assessee is eligible to carry forward these losses.
The Tribunal held that the MAT credit of amalgamating companies is allowable in the hands of the amalgamated company. The scheme of amalgamation expressly provided for the transfer of such benefits, and Section 115JAA does not prohibit this in cases of amalgamation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) cannot be sustained. The primary reason is the explicit and repeated initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A in the assessment order, coupled with the specific recording of satisfaction for misreporting of income, which is terminology germane to Section 270A. The Tribunal found that this cannot be brushed aside as a mere typographical error, especially given the statutory exclusion under Section 271AAC(2) of imposing penalty under Section 270A for income referred to in Section 271AAC(1). Therefore, the AO's subsequent attempt to substitute Section 271AAC(1) by treating the conscious initiation under Section 270A as a clerical error was not accepted. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, a non-resident, was not registered on the e-filing portal during the relevant period, and the notices were uploaded there. The postal communication was returned, and service was effected by affixture. Considering these peculiar circumstances and the assessee's consistent explanation, which was accepted for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the assessee was effectively afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the penalty proceedings as mandated by Section 274. The Tribunal set aside the finding of the authorities below and deleted the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings was obtained from an incompetent authority, rendering the entire reassessment process invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans, interest on loans, and balance road tax to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to examine evidence, including lender confirmations and road tax receipts, and decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued without jurisdiction as the mandatory approval under section 151(2) from the Joint Commissioner was not obtained. The extension of time under TOLA did not alter the requirement for the specific authority's satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make independent inquiries and did not bring any adverse material on record to disprove the evidence furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the share transactions and that there were no allegations of price manipulation against the assessee or their broker at the time of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to examine all grounds, evidence, and submissions, and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects of promoting the advertising profession qualify as 'general public utility' and that the 'Goafest' activities are not commercial in nature. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) does not have the power to grant registration or approval subject to a future contingency. The condition imposed was arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly examined the commercial aspects of the loan, such as its source, terms, interest rate, and purpose. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and not actuated by mala fides. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked when income is assessed under Section 44AD, as the assessee is not required to maintain regular books of account. The cash deposits were explained as business receipts and the AO did not establish an undisclosed source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and not actuated by mala fides. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that entrance fees received by the assessee constitute a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. Furthermore, the reassessment proceedings were found to be without jurisdiction as the notice was issued beyond four years without demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and not actuated by mala fides. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that recruitment and training expenses, and communication expenses were revenue in nature as they did not result in enduring benefit or acquisition of capital assets. The Tribunal also held that reimbursement of expenses to the holding company did not attract Section 194C as no work was performed by the holding company for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person, after being made aware of the death, is void ab initio. Such a fundamental error cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the protective additions. This was because substantive additions for the same items had already been made in the hands of Nitin B. Jain, making the protective additions unsustainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, directing the authority to examine the legal grounds regarding limited scrutiny and jurisdiction, and to decide the valuation and other additions on merits after considering all material.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the order under Section 148A(d) lacked specific findings regarding the assessee's involvement and escapement of income. The reassessment order passed under Section 147 was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and not actuated by mala fides. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.