Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remanded the issue of excess cane price payment to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the issue of TDS on interest was also remanded for verification of payee's tax compliance.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cessation of liability and unexplained loans due to lack of evidence. However, it allowed the ground concerning agricultural income, finding the disallowance to be ad-hoc. The ground regarding Section 40A(ia) was also dismissed for want of evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was noted that the assessee had not derived any exempt income in the relevant year, making the disallowance and subsequent penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought to withdraw the appeal as the CIT(A)'s directions had been complied with by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue did not dispute these developments.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's revision directions. It agreed that the Assessing Officer's lack of inquiry into the genuineness of cash deposits and resultant interest income made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal restored the Section 54F deduction issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to issues with the sale deed date. The addition for unexplained cash credit was upheld, though the AO was directed to invoke Section 69A instead of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the additions under Section 50C were made without clearly indicating the difference between the declared price and the stamp value, making the addition itself debatable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the additions under Section 50C were made without clearly indicating the difference between the declared price and the stamp value, making the addition itself debatable.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(1)(vii)(b)(i) as applicable for the assessment year 2010-11 did not cover a situation where property was received for inadequate consideration, but rather only 'without consideration'. The amendment to the section, which would cover inadequate consideration, was effective from a later date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pendency of rectification proceedings and the principle of substantial justice. The ground related to Section 80P deduction was dismissed as not pressed. The ground regarding Section 43B disallowance was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of labour charges and supervision charges paid. The lack of proper documentation and the failure to establish the nature of work led to the confirmation of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application to condone the delay, finding the reasons provided insufficient and not on a day-to-day basis. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that Section 50 applies only if the asset forms part of the block of assets and depreciation has been allowed. Since there was a dispute on whether depreciation was actually allowed, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings. It held that the notional rental addition on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade could not be made, as per established judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the assessment order passed without disposing of objections was without jurisdiction and void. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication, pending the outcome of the Section 12AA registration withdrawal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the assessment order passed without disposing of objections was without jurisdiction and void. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication, pending the outcome of the Section 12AA registration withdrawal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowings for highway development could not be deducted against interest income earned from fixed deposits, as the two activities were not directly connected. However, the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted, accepting the assessee's valuation of shares based on the Discounted Cash Flow method.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance in quantum proceedings does not automatically attract penalty proceedings. The failure to prove the machine was put to use on the specific date does not, in itself, make the assessee liable for penalty.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence proposed to be filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings. It held that the notional rental addition on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade could not be made, as per established judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the assessee could not present their case before the CIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for re-adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings. It held that the notional rental addition on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade could not be made, as per established judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding the applicability of Section 43CA(3) and (4) was a legal issue not previously addressed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the assessment order passed without disposing of objections was without jurisdiction and void. For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the matters were remanded to the AO for re-adjudication, pending the outcome of the Section 12AA registration withdrawal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when it pertains only to a gross profit estimation disallowance, not the entire bogus purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowings for highway development could not be deducted against interest income earned from fixed deposits, as the two activities were not directly connected. However, the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted, accepting the assessee's valuation of shares based on the Discounted Cash Flow method.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B was not leviable as the assessee had a bona fide belief that only commission receipts constituted turnover for audit purposes. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that while Section 80P(4) restricts deductions for cooperative banks, it does not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from deposits with other cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, notwithstanding the insertion of Section 80P(4). The Tribunal followed its previous decisions on the matter.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to the GP rate. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in N.K. Proteins Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that when purchases are found to be bogus, the entire amount should be disallowed, not just the profit embedded in them.
The Tribunal held that a payer cannot be treated as an assessee in default if the payee has included the interest income in their total income and paid taxes thereon. The furnishing of a Chartered Accountant's certificate in Form 26A, even if submitted later in appeal, satisfies the requirement.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B was not leviable as the assessee had a bona fide belief that only commission receipts constituted turnover for audit purposes. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the source of the deposit by demonstrating her regular income from a beauty parlour business and a substantial cash balance from the preceding year. The Tribunal found the explanation to be satisfactory.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had withdrawn significant amounts from his bank accounts, some of which were from a home loan. It was unclear if these withdrawn amounts were fully utilized for house construction or available for re-deposit.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to taxing windmill revenue, disallowance of provision for contractual liabilities, and cancellation charges paid to related parties. The ground regarding depreciation on road development was partly allowed, and the issue of interest disallowance was remanded back to the AO for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of duty drawback was a business decision crystallizing a loss in the current year, not a prior period item. The write-off was permissible as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition for incentive wages was wrongly made as the liability was discharged in the subsequent period and the genuineness of expenditure was not doubted. It also held that additions under Section 40A(2)(b) cannot be made without establishing the fair market value of the services.
The Tribunal held that the employer is duty-bound to deposit employees' contribution within the due date as per the respective statutes. Failure to do so disentitles the employer to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the employer is duty-bound to deposit employees' contribution to provident fund within the statutory due dates. Failure to do so disentitles the employer to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that similar claims for capital receipts under the early retirement scheme were accepted in other cases by the NFAC. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-attendance. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative credit society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred during the interval between setting up a business and its commencement are allowable as deductions. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to examine the nexus of the expenditure with the new business. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the employer is duty-bound to deposit employees' contribution within the due date as per the respective statutes. Failure to do so disentitles the employer to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited after the statutory due date, is not deductible. It also held that education cess is not an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest earned from nationalized banks. This decision followed a previous ruling by the ITAT Pune Bench in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was casual and based on suspicion rather than conclusive evidence. While upholding the deletion of a substantial part of the disallowance by the CIT(A), the Tribunal allowed a partial disallowance of Rs. 12.21 lakhs.