Loading ITAT cases…
1,140 orders · Page 23 of 23
The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal before it, accepting the assessee's explanation of genuine and unavoidable circumstances supported by medical evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that once the income used for expenditure was disclosed and accepted, the same cash could not be treated as unexplained expenditure. For the loan from the husband, the Tribunal found no material to dislodge the CIT(A)'s finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and source of funds were explained, thus upholding the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been resolved by the subsequent renewal of registration.
The Tribunal held that a direct one-to-one nexus is not always required for allowing interest expenditure under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal found that the material on record sufficiently demonstrated a connection between the borrowing, its deployment in the assessee's land dealing activity, and temporary interest-bearing deployments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to specify the exact documents or information that were not furnished, thus denying the assessee a proper opportunity to respond. Consequently, both applications were restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowance cannot be made solely on the non-appearance of third parties and that the CIT(A) reasonably considered the profit element embedded in the transactions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that selecting an incorrect clause in the electronic form was a curable procedural defect. The applications should not have been rejected on this technicality without examining the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to specify the exact documents or information that remained unfurnished, preventing the assessee from addressing the deficiencies. Therefore, the matter requires fresh examination.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish the instrument of creation, and the CIT(E) was asked to verify the documents and decide afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the issue regarding NRE fixed deposits and remanded the issue concerning the proviso to Section 201(1) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the issue regarding NRE fixed deposits and remanded the issue concerning the proviso to Section 201(1) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is not a fatal defect if the institution was established otherwise than under an instrument and has provided other documentary evidence. Registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and related records are considered valid evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the issue regarding NRE fixed deposits and remanded the issue concerning the proviso to Section 201(1) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies, following a High Court judgment. It also allowed the issue regarding NRE fixed deposits and remanded the issue concerning the proviso to Section 201(1) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed is not fatal if the institution was established otherwise than under an instrument and has provided other documentary evidence. Registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and its records are sufficient evidence for the purpose of Rule 17A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.
The Tribunal held that the profit from the sale of the depreciable asset, credited to the Profit and Loss Account, should be included in the book profit for calculating partner remuneration. The remuneration claimed was found to be within the statutory ceiling.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income from cash deposits at 20%, acknowledging the cash-intensive nature of the assessee's business. However, it ruled that Section 115BBE, with its enhanced tax rate, was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2017-18, following a High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by partners, when explained with regard to identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, cannot be treated as unexplained income. The proviso to Section 68 was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to the substantial delay in filing and the incorrect statement in Form 36 regarding no delay. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had issued notices to the assessee, which went unanswered, and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an authority without proper jurisdiction, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. This inherent defect was considered incurable, leading to the quashing of the notice and the consequent assessment order.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on non-compliance with a notice, which the appellant claimed was an inadvertent error. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the appellant to pursue the application.
The Tribunal, considering the significant disallowance and the nature of the evidence, decided that the issue requires adjudication with the additional evidence. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction during assessment proceedings, which was not done here as the penalty order preceded the assessment order. Furthermore, unsigned third-party documents without corroboration are insufficient to sustain a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery was not sufficiently proved to be held by the assessee and upheld the addition. Regarding the brokerage, it was held that since the individual who rendered the service was already compensated, the payment to the HUF was not for genuine service rendered by the HUF itself.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the particular limb or clause of Section 270A(9) in the penalty notice, which is a mandatory requirement. Following previous decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were treated as invalid by the AO following the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, rendering the original assessment order and the current appeal infructuous. The Revenue is at liberty to pursue other remedies.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice was valid as it was issued within four years, thus not requiring Joint Commissioner approval. However, a significant portion of the alleged receipts pertained to a subsequent assessment year and was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee had discharged her onus by furnishing documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were conducted through the recognized stock exchange. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the Assessee's son, the Tribunal found the transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO issued the notice under Section 143(2) simultaneously with furnishing reasons, without allowing the assessee an opportunity to file objections and without disposing of them. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden to rebut the assessee's evidence regarding the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 727 days, finding sufficient cause due to the firm's reconstitution and communication issues. The impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to 12.5%. The Tribunal restored the AO's addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The CIT(A) quashed the assessment for lack of a remand report and proof of requisite approval for converting the scrutiny. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to allow the Revenue to submit the approval and to adjudicate the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 12.5%. The Tribunal restored the AO's addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation as bona fide. The Tribunal found that the issue of cash deposits required proper verification of the source of funds, which were claimed to be from the husband's income.
The Tribunal held that deduction cannot be denied entirely if some units exceed the area limit, but can only be allowed for eligible units. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the built-up area of specific units claimed for deduction.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned and the Explanation to Section 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 is prospective. For Section 36(1)(iii), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.