Loading ITAT cases…
137 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the approval granted to the trust for claiming deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) was withdrawn by the CBDT with retrospective effect. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, is invalid. The reasoning is that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowers the Assessing Officer to levy such fees while processing TDS statements, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for periods before this date, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E. The Tribunal relied on its coordinate bench decision and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Fatheraj Singhvi Vs. Union of India, which held that the amendment to Section 200A is prospective. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had mis-referred to decisions and failed to consider that when there is a difference of opinion between High Courts, the one favoring the assessee should be followed. The operative direction is the deletion of the impugned late filing fees. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that while the AO was justified in passing an ex-parte order due to the non-filing of return and non-furnishing of documents, the estimation of net profit at 15% was not justified. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the net profit of 8.5% offered by the assessee was a fair estimation for civil contract work.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution and the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The ITAT held that the return was filed belatedly. The CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal as the provisions of the Act for carrying forward losses are applicable only when the return is filed within the stipulated time. The ITAT noted that if the delay in filing the return is condoned by the PCCIT, the assessee would be entitled to carry forward the business loss.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that their submissions were ignored by the Assessing Officer, despite being filed with supporting documents. The CIT(E) was directed to re-consider the matter denovo.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in banking and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered issues outside the scope of the assessment and that the nature of the assessee's activity was clear.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 186 days without deciding on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for the decision as required by law. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that milk vendors are exempt from income tax for the deposit of demonetized currency notes as they are involved in essential commodities and were allowed by the government to accept old currency. Therefore, the additions made under section 69 and 69C were deleted.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s directions were flawed as the assessee had failed to discharge its onus during assessment. The tribunal restored the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, stating that the assessee should not be allowed a second innings to improve its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a technical mistake in applying under the wrong sub-section of Section 80G. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, allowing the CIT(E) to consider a subsequent application or call for a fresh one.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the levy, had prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted to the trust for claiming deductions under Section 35(1)(ii) was withdrawn by the CBDT with retrospective effect. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid. This was because the Assessing Officer did not have valid reasons or tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 229 days in filing, without deciding the merits. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, condoned the delay to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under section 12AB. Given this development, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution due to non-response to notices. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, without deciding on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without deciding on merits. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, found that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations in cases of non-deliberate delay.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue's representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6). The Tribunal held that the matter requires verification of whether the property was purchased by the husband and the assessee was merely a co-owner for loan facility purposes. Hence, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as there was no error in the AO's order or prejudice to revenue. The PCIT also directed inquiries beyond the scope of the notice, which is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without deciding the issues on merits. The CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's counsel rightly pointed out that the learned CIT(A) had not decided the matter on merits as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates giving reasons for the decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution rather than deciding the issues on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the grounds raised by the assessee back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the issue afresh, based on facts and law, after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that it would be incumbent upon the assessee to plead and prove its case before the CIT(A) by furnishing all requisite documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as there was no error in the AO's order or prejudice to revenue. The PCIT also directed inquiries beyond the scope of the notice, which is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file documentary evidence before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of addition made under section 68 regarding cash deposit to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to substantiate the case with documentary evidence. The second ground of appeal regarding PF contribution was dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs related to unexplained cash credit, citing a bank error in the creditor's name. The issue of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 1,09,352/- was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The disallowance of 50% on various expenses was reduced to 25%.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file its income tax returns for the relevant assessment years. As per Section 80A(5) of the Act, no deduction can be allowed if a claim is not made in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowance was correct.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was negligent in filing its return and providing necessary documentation. The lower authorities (Assessing Officer and CIT(A)) had rightly made additions and disallowed expenses due to the lack of response and evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file its income tax returns for the relevant assessment years. As per Section 80A(5) of the Act, no deduction can be allowed if a claim is not made in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowance was correct.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments, made from surplus operational funds not immediately required for business, constituted income from its banking business and was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the Totgars' case was held to be distinguishable.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision and other High Court judgments, held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments, which were maintained as liquid funds for operational needs and to meet contingencies, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as income derived from its banking business.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as there was no error in the AO's order or prejudice to revenue. The PCIT also directed inquiries beyond the scope of the notice, which is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as there was no error in the AO's order or prejudice to revenue. The PCIT also directed inquiries beyond the scope of the notice, which is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as there was no error in the AO's order or prejudice to revenue. The PCIT also directed inquiries beyond the scope of the notice, which is invalid as per Supreme Court precedent.