Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's activities, including holding exhibitions, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Citing a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal found this defect fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the bogus purchases should be added, not the entire amount. Following a jurisdictional High Court precedent, the addition was restricted to 10% of the purchase amount.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's activities, including holding exhibitions, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which includes a levy of late fee under Section 234E, is maintainable under Section 246A. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi. Intimations for periods prior to this date under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal found that there was no clear indication of service of hearing notices on the assessee. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to appear before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's activities, including holding exhibitions, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to Section 11 exemption.
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of VAT and service tax deductions. It reasoned that expenses related to exempt income cannot be claimed against taxable income in the current year, especially when the assessee had already benefited from Section 80IB(10) exemptions.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which includes the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is maintainable under Section 246A. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on grounds of maintainability.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi. Intimations for periods prior to this date under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's activities, including holding exhibitions, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi. Intimations for periods prior to this date under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi. Intimations for periods prior to this date under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 36,09,000/-. It found that the development agreement did not indicate any consideration for these payments, and the assessee failed to justify the payments with adequate confirmations or evidence beyond stating they were routed through banking channels.
For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was rejected as no exempt income was earned. For AY 2014-15, the Section 14A disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. The Section 36(1)(va) disallowance was deleted as the employee contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for the penalty was fatally flawed as it did not specify whether the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. This failure was fatal to the validity of the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the deduction for late deposit of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. It also allowed the claim for loss on valuation of 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) securities, reversing the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided additional evidence claiming the land was agricultural and set aside the penalty on capital gains to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty on interest income was also set aside for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Considering the circumstances and allowing an additional legal ground, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the assessee no longer had any grievance regarding the Section 263 order, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the VAT paid for earlier years is deductible in the current year, but it must be adjusted against the 80IB(10) projects, not the non-80IB(10) projects. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted as there was no exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that a co-ordinate bench had done so for identical appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due verification and examination before allowing the Section 54B deduction, and the assessment order could not be termed 'erroneous'. Therefore, the Pr.CIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatheraj Singhvi. Intimations for periods prior to this date under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which includes the levy of late fees under Section 234E, is maintainable under Section 246A. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on grounds of maintainability.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits, allowing the assessee to present their case and lead fresh evidence.
The CIT(A) reversed the AO's addition. The assessee argued that the transfer was not registered and required MIDC consent, and the land needed subdivision. The AO considered the transfer complete as possession was given and an agreement was executed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. It also allowed the claim for loss on valuation of 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) securities, reversing the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on windmills, following its own prior decision and High Court rulings. The generation of electricity from windmills is considered production of an article or goods.
For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was rejected as no exempt income was earned. For AY 2014-15, the Section 14A disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. The Section 36(1)(va) disallowance was deleted as the employee contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of an appeal on its merits, even if it's an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter needs to be adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained money deposits under Section 69A, finding that the assessee failed to prove her business activity. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the peak amount of bank deposits, allowing for a telescopic benefit from the previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income, the disallowance was not warranted. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which would have disallowed such deposits, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB, the Profit & Loss Account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and approved by the AGM must be used. A separate set of accounts for income tax purposes, not approved by the AGM and not adhering to the same accounting policies and standards, is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that remuneration and share of profits received from a partnership firm do not qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as they are derived from a contractual relationship, not the eligible business activity of the assessee. Furthermore, the late filing of the return disqualified the assessee from claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income, and the assessment year was prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained money deposits under Section 69A, finding that the assessee failed to prove her business activity. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the peak amount of bank deposits, allowing for a telescopic benefit from the previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB, the Profit & Loss Account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and approved by the AGM must be used. A separate set of accounts for income tax purposes, not approved by the AGM and not adhering to the same accounting policies and standards, is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB, the Profit & Loss Account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and approved by the AGM must be used. A separate set of accounts for income tax purposes, not approved by the AGM and not adhering to the same accounting policies and standards, is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that remuneration and share of profits received from a partnership firm do not qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as they are derived from a contractual relationship, not the eligible business activity of the assessee. Furthermore, the late filing of the return disqualified the assessee from claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income and the assessment year was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The addition is directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the share transactions were not genuine and were used to generate bogus long-term capital gains. The gains were therefore rightly added as unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was vitiated due to the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2). Following a previous order for AY 2010-11 with similar facts, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance could be made.