Loading ITAT cases…
1,140 orders · Page 18 of 23
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the admission of additional evidence. For the notional interest on advances, the matter was remanded to the AO for limited verification. The grounds related to trading income were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law, considering the 'surviving period' available to the Revenue. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a DVO valuation report for the same property, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the additional evidence and afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was justified in not deducting TDS due to the binding interim order of the Madras High Court. Following the interim directions, which restrained the bank from deducting tax, meant that not deducting tax was not a default.
The Tribunal held that CCDs retain their character as debt until actual conversion into equity and cannot be re-characterized as equity from inception for transfer pricing purposes. The Tribunal also found the assessee's effective interest rate to be within the arm's length range based on domestic lending benchmarks.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 143(1) was valid as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, which clarified that employees' PF/ESI contributions are deductible only if deposited by the due date under the respective welfare statutes. The subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2026, was not retrospective for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of indexation benefit as the assessee used the incorrect financial year for indexation, specifically the date of possession instead of the date of transfer of ownership. No new evidence was presented to rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as part payment of the consideration was paid through banking channels at the time of allotment. The lower authorities failed to dispute the allotment letter and the part payments made.
The Tribunal held that the AO's jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment after a remand order is subject to time limitations prescribed under Section 153(3). The case was remanded to the AO to verify the exact date of receipt of the Tribunal's order to determine if the assessment was indeed time-barred.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the non-prosecution. It held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment after a remand order is subject to time limitations prescribed under Section 153(3). The case was remanded to the AO to verify the exact date of receipt of the Tribunal's order to determine if the assessment was indeed time-barred.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing for fresh adjudication of the registration application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already obtained regular approval before filing the renewal application, making its application under the correct clause. The rejection on maintainability grounds was based on a factual error.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance was unsustainable as it was based on suspicion without concrete evidence of cash returning to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the karigars were independent entities and their banking transactions were their own concern.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 143(1) was valid as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, which clarified that employees' PF/ESI contributions are deductible only if deposited by the due date under the respective welfare statutes. The subsequent amendment by the Finance Act, 2026, was not retrospective for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the submitted reconciliation, ledger accounts, and other evidence for both disallowances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's failure to properly dispose of the assessee's objections before passing the assessment order rendered the assessment erroneous and bad in law. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored all grounds of appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was because the legal grounds raised for the first time required verification of assessment records, including potential orders under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the assessee had disclosed all primary facts concerning the interest receipt and its source. The dispute was only regarding the tax character of the disclosed receipt.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the assessee's contentions, including the applicability of tax rates and the admissibility of expenses, and had merely endorsed the AO's order without independent application of mind. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the prescribed limitation period as per the Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting the assessee's explanation for non-production and the ex-parte disposal by the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after examining the admitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the final notice issued on 29.07.2022 for assessment year 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal, which acknowledged the Revenue's concession that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 would be dropped.
The Tribunal held that the employer's responsibility to deposit employee contributions to PF/ESIC arises from the month for which the salary is earned, not the month of actual disbursement. Payments made after the due date, as per this interpretation, would be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that since the information originated from a search and seizure operation on a third party, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The reassessment notice and consequent actions were deemed illegal and void.
The Tribunal held that fully and compulsorily convertible debentures are hybrid instruments that remain debt instruments until conversion into equity. The re-characterization of CCDs as equity for transfer pricing purposes by the revenue authorities was not sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the transfer pricing grounds, deleting the adjustment, and directed the AO to recompute the Section 94B disallowance considering the TP adjustment and the scope of the section. The issue regarding the computation sheet was set aside to the AO, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the underlying unsecured loans was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench, the disallowance of interest on those loans in a subsequent year was unsustainable. The AO could not indirectly reopen the decided issue.
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Since no one appeared for the appellant, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The issue of 80G approval was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow for a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) for proper determination of capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the material on record required a more comprehensive factual examination, including the activities of the lender companies and the routing of funds. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request for cross-examination of a key witness.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee, i.e., Rs. 15,58,058. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on various High Court judgments stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced tolerance limit of 10% for the difference between stamp duty value and consideration is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the variation of approximately 6.2%-6.6% in this case falls within the protected band, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to counter the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were bad in law because they were based on a hypothesis of future events and not on a concrete belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. A discrepancy in the name of the alleged entry provider further indicated a lack of due diligence.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not make the registration and approval contingent on a proposed SLP, as the jurisdictional High Court's judgment was binding. The conditions were expunged, and the CIT(E) was directed to issue modified orders without these qualifications.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the sales tax prepayment saving as a legal issue. It decided to remit the entire issue of sales tax prepayment to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The documentary evidence furnished by the assessee regarding the purchase, holding, and sale of shares was not disproved by the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier year. The project was considered integrated, and the Project Completion Method was consistently followed.
The Tribunal held that the documents furnished by the assessee, including the Schedule II application and the registration certificate from the Charity Commissioner, constitute sufficient evidence of its creation and establishment, especially for an institution not formed by a formal instrument. The absence of a formal trust deed or a scheme should not be a ground for rejection at the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that the ad hoc disallowance of commission expenditure could not be sustained. It noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including recipient details, PAN, and TDS particulars, and the AO had not identified any specific payment as bogus.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to counter the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the partner's medical condition. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to verify the source of the cash deposits in the lender's bank account.
The Tribunal found that the material on record required a more comprehensive factual examination, including the activities of the lender companies and the routing of funds. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that profit on sale of investments, dividend income, and expenditure on computer peripherals were not taxable or disallowable. It also ruled that co-insurance fees were not subject to TDS under Section 194H.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not make the registration and approval contingent on a proposed SLP, as the jurisdictional High Court's judgment was binding. The conditions were expunged, and the CIT(E) was directed to issue modified orders without these qualifications.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was due to the assessee furnishing additional evidence that was not available before the lower authorities, requiring verification.