Loading ITAT cases…
387 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 387 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to present additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer was directed to file all necessary evidence at their own level.
The Tribunal held that the issue of setting off F&O losses against other income is debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal to file a fresh appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the liquor retailers/warehouses are state agencies and payments made to them fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the IT Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee's activities, such as operating a marriage hall and guesthouse, were in the nature of business and not merely incidental to its charitable purposes. The decision relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in New Noble Educational Society vs. CCIT.
The Tribunal held that since the loans were availed in cash, making interest payments in cash was a justifiable reason. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, as there was no indication that the assessee's non-appearance was intentional or deliberate.
The Tribunal restricted the addition for cash deposits to Rs. 6,00,000/-, acknowledging the possibility of past savings but not fully accepting the assessee's claim. The addition of Rs. 5,60,000/- was deleted as it attracted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It rejected the disallowance of renovation expenditure due to lack of evidence but allowed the claim for indexation of renovation expenditure from 31.03.1992 and indexation of the property's cost from the previous owner's acquisition date.
The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from members/employees is in the nature of business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P, citing a coordinate bench decision.
The tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for amounts credited before the due date of filing the return of income are to be sustained, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. However, disallowances of professional tax credited before the due date under Section 43B were deleted.
The tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for amounts credited before the due date of filing the return of income are to be sustained, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. However, disallowances of professional tax credited before the due date under Section 43B were deleted.
The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to show any contractual liability or agreement, oral or written, between the assessee and the payees. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution must be deposited on or before the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to claim a deduction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., the assessee is not entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided varying explanations for the cash deposit, initially claiming it was from a sister concern, then from agricultural land sale, and finally from withdrawals from his proprietory business. The Tribunal found these explanations unsatisfactory.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) as the funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The argument of double taxation was rejected as the disallowance was upheld in principle.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the lower authorities. The DVO's valuation was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary, leading to the affirmation of the capital gains addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits. Mere routing through banking channels is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's current grievance was not maintainable as it pertained to an issue that had already been decided in a previous round of appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, even if the assessee does not explicitly request it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to Provident Fund must be deposited before the due date specified in the respective statute. Since the assessee admitted to not depositing the amount before the due date, the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding 30% disallowance is prospective, and the addition of interest income on interest-free advances was deleted as it was not prescribed under the relevant sections of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice after the assessee's correspondence. Therefore, the impugned assessment was quashed.
The tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 11 exemption claim due to the absence of Section 12AA registration. However, the issue regarding the assessment rate was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not actually debited and claimed the service tax as an expense. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 43B for want of actual payment was not applicable. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that additions involving a partner's capital account of a firm should be made in the hands of the partner, not the firm. Therefore, the additions made to the firm's capital account were deleted.
The Tribunal held that merely making incorrect claims, which are disallowed by the AO, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., no penalty can be imposed if all facts and claims were disclosed.
The tribunal held that income from godown rent earned by the assessee society is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as it does not pertain to the primary activities of a co-operative society.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal against the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263, as they intended to contest the consequential assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited on or before the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the assessee failed to provide evidence of fulfilling the conditions for the deduction, similar to a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.