Loading ITAT cases…
293 orders · Page 3 of 6
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and noted that the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the limb or charge. Consequently, the penalty imposed was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be levied after June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the period in question (AY 2013-14, Q4), the levy was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without remanding it to the Assessing Officer for verification. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to enable the AO to conduct a fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be levied after June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the period in question (AY 2013-14, Q4), the levy was not applicable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding the reasons to be bonafide. However, since a similar appeal against the same order had already been disposed of, the present appeal was deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal held that a difference in Form 26AS alone, without any evidence of actual receipt by the assessee, cannot be treated as income. The lower authorities erred in making the addition solely based on the payer's 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the limb or charge. Consequently, the penalty imposed was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in levying the penalty. The assessment itself was based on unexplained investments and credits, and the assessee's auditor had appeared on a subsequent date.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to excess cane price and concessional sugar sales for statistical purposes, directing fresh adjudication. It deleted the disallowance for cash payments to employees under Section 40A(3) and allowed a partial disallowance for miscellaneous expenses. The addition for cattle camp/fodder depot income was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised computation of income after the survey did not negate the initial concealment. The penalty was justified as the disclosure was not voluntary but a result of the survey action.
The Tribunal held that Section 27 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with deemed ownership, is applicable only for computing income from house property (Sections 22 to 26) and not for granting exemption under Section 54F. Therefore, the gift to the spouse did not disentitle the assessee from the Section 54F exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The issue was identical to a previous case where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Furthermore, any disallowance of provisions for expenses would increase business profits, which are also eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be applied after June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the period in question (AY 2013-14, Q4), the levy was not applicable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's application.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revision jurisdiction. The assessee had suo motu disallowed/added back Rs. 1,59,27,917/- under Section 43CA. The PCIT's aggregation basis for the difference was incorrect as Section 43CA applies on a unit-wise basis.
The Tribunal found that the issue of Section 43B disallowance could lead to double addition. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of factual aspects.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which is applicable from 1st April 2021, is not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. Since the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, the disallowance was not justified.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient. The mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account does not, by itself, indicate that income has escaped assessment.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the substantive grounds of appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted that the issues of excess cane price payment and sale of sugar at concessional rates were not res integra, citing a previous Tribunal order that set aside similar grounds for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before making disallowance under Section 14A. It also ruled that no notional rent can be added on unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade. For provision for expenses, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of crystallization of liability.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening proceedings. The reopening reason did not indicate that the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment due to failure in fully and truly disclosing all relevant particulars.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were insufficient. The mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account does not, by itself, indicate that income has escaped assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate any reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TDS statements, and therefore, the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate any reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS statements. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to provident fund, paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable as a deduction. The assessment order was not erroneous as the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant facts and judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from representing their case before the PCIT due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the pandemic period. It then set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit all required details.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer ought to have examined the deductibility of the license transfer fee. Since the Pr.CIT merely directed the AO to re-examine the issue, and the assessee would have an opportunity to present its case, no interference with the Pr.CIT's order was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration had not accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration. The AO was directed to compute short-term capital gains based on the EMIs repaid by the developer towards the mortgaged loan, as and when they were received by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee invested the capital gains in a new flat before filing the return of income under Section 139(4). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the assessee, i.e., advice from a consultant, did not constitute a sufficient cause to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that once income is declared and offered for taxation in the return, the AO is not justified in imposing a penalty, especially when no loss has occurred to the revenue and the assessee has acted bona fide. The penalty provision requires a satisfaction of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which was not established here.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, to meet the interests of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision which held that the issue of excess sugarcane price paid to members and non-members, and the sale of sugar at concessional rates, needed to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of Supreme Court directions.
The Tribunal held that royalty expenditure is revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions. Similarly, homologation expenses were also held to be revenue expenditure, as they were incurred for the smooth running of the business.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had initially not disputed being a common shareholder during the assessment proceedings and argued the loan was a business transaction, he later presented evidence before the CIT(A) showing he was not a registered shareholder of SCDPL at the time the loan was advanced by KUDL. The CIT(A), after obtaining a remand report from the AO, concurred with the assessee's submission. The Tribunal observed that this fact, that the assessee was not a shareholder in SCDPL at the relevant time, was not controverted by the Revenue's Senior DR. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which correctly concluded that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, granted permission. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny without following due process. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny without following due process. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration had not accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration. The AO was directed to compute short-term capital gains based on the EMIs repaid by the developer towards the mortgaged loan, as and when they were received by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's submissions without proper verification of the proportion of area sold to total area and the total cost incurred. Therefore, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 could not be sustained. The assessee had sufficient own interest-free capital, exceeding the investments made, thus the investments were presumed to be out of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file relevant evidence.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.