Loading ITAT cases…
293 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were without merit as the underlying Section 263 revision directions were reversed, rendering the assessments invalid. The assessee's appeal was rejected as not maintainable due to the lack of any additions made in the assessment and the failure to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution beyond the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return of income is an allowable expenditure. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not apply to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to revive the appeals if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to revive the appeals if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were without merit as the underlying Section 263 revision directions were reversed, rendering the assessments invalid. The assessee's appeal was rejected as not maintainable due to the lack of any additions made in the assessment and the failure to condone the delay.
The tribunal held that the 10% tolerance margin under Section 43CA(1) should be applied retrospectively, similar to Section 50C. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.
The tribunal followed previous judgments of the Supreme Court and its own co-ordinate benches. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no distinction in facts or law from previous assessment years where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of section 12AA registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to consider the assessee's objects and their applicability under section 2(15) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the issue of milk rate difference payable to primary cooperative milk societies had already been decided in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court. Since the Revenue's Special Leave Petition against the High Court's decision was withdrawn, the Tribunal followed the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with liberty to revive the appeals if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not maintainable as the assessee had sufficient own funds (reserves and surplus) to make the investments. However, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed based on previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of customers and the nature of the stock. The AO failed to verify the assessee's explanation and made additions based on conjecture, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede justice and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) for projects not completed within the prescribed period. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) for projects not completed within the prescribed period. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to retract the admission of excess stock made during the survey. A mere assertion of unconsidered bills was insufficient without supporting documentation.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was unsustainable. The PCIT's opinion on advances for properties was based on no evidence, and the issue of interest disallowance had become academic due to deletion by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) for projects not completed within the prescribed period. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation for the cash deposit, citing withdrawals from her bank account and agricultural receipts. The authorities below had not adequately considered this explanation.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only those investments from which exempt income was actually earned during the year. This was based on a precedent from a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the Area Development Fund collected by the assessee was impressed with an obligation and should be allowed as a deduction. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The contribution to Vasantdada Sugar Institute was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's withdrawal and subsequent deposit of funds was to protect the company's interest, as evidenced by the eventual repayment with interest. Therefore, the AO's addition under Section 2(22)(e) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Area Development Fund collected by the assessee was impressed with an obligation and should be allowed as a deduction. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The contribution to Vasantdada Sugar Institute was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Area Development Fund collected by the assessee was impressed with an obligation and should be allowed as a deduction. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The contribution to Vasantdada Sugar Institute was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for arriving at the average value of investments. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the advance should be considered for capital gains under Section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that GIL should be excluded as a comparable due to significant differences in its trading vs. manufacturing revenue streams compared to the assessee. BGAL was also excluded due to an extraordinary financial event (merger).
The Tribunal held that it was not justified to tax the capital gain in the hands of the assessee as she had already transferred her rights to Jayantilal Oswal and received sale consideration of Rs. 51,00,000. The remaining sale consideration was received by Jayantilal Oswal and was offered to tax by him.
The Tribunal found that the alleged loan was not genuine, as evidenced by the contradictory statements of the lender and the nature of the transaction involving a General Power of Attorney. Consequently, the addition on account of unexplained cash credit and the consequential disallowance of interest were upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate for fresh adjudication by the assessing authority. For the other expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance from 15% to 5%.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the excess amount of Rs.92,435, which represents the difference between the addition made and the total income declared by the assessee. The AO's assumption of 2% commission on all bank deposits was not fully substantiated.