Loading ITAT cases…
267 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on fixed deposits with other co-operative banks qualifies for exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CPC was directed to rectify the intimation and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with two effective opportunities to submit evidence and to reframe the assessment and consequential penalty proceedings de novo.
The tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the due date for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish the required documents. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain new claims or grounds, even if not raised before the assessing officer, citing various High Court judgments. The Tribunal found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain new claims or grounds, even if not raised before the assessing officer, citing various High Court judgments. The Tribunal found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with two effective opportunities to submit evidence and to reframe the assessment and consequential penalty proceedings de novo.
The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with two effective opportunities to submit evidence and to reframe the assessment and consequential penalty proceedings de novo.
The tribunal noted that the CBDT circular extended the time for filing the application. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish the required documents. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted, only the supporting evidence for some handmade vouchers was lacking. While the assessee could not produce the doubted vouchers, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 5% in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal found that while development rights appeared to be transferred, certain circumstances suggested otherwise. Considering new evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the denial of Section 12A registration was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. Therefore, the assessment order was also remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as the time granted for compliance was less than one week in each notice. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications as per CBDT directions regarding SBN deposits. This failure rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative prayed for withdrawal of the appeal, and the revenue representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order without considering the assessee's objections to the DVO's report. The Tribunal held that this was against the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority is bound to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte cases. Therefore, the NFAC should have adjudicated the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The tribunal held that appellate authorities should deal with the merits of the grounds of appeal even in ex-parte orders. The NFAC's dismissal for non-prosecution without considering the merits was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. Therefore, the Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds in cooperative and scheduled banks partakes the character of business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling and the view of certain High Courts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made some compliances but lacked substantive evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the assessment order allowing such a claim cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the ex-parte order and the existence of valid reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Due to the pandemic, the assessee was prevented from appearing and presenting their case, which constitutes a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The tribunal found that the NFAC had discussed incorrect facts and had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sub-contractual payments as non-genuine, as the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the AO's reasoning due to lack of specific material evidence. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the enhancement of GP margins, directing assessment at 8% or the declared rate, whichever is higher.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they lacked an opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI, if paid after the due dates prescribed by the respective Acts, are disallowable as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited was relied upon.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the Pr. CIT during the revision proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Pr. CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a 'Sathekhat' which did not mention the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 1.50 crore. Therefore, the reopening was quashed, and the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, finding that the allocation of common expenses was not a service transfer requiring a markup. The Tribunal noted that similar adjustments were not made in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments held with a cooperative bank. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESIC must be deposited before the due date mentioned in the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the failure to provide an opportunity of being heard before rectification under Section 154 goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the case was remitted to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with cooperative banks/scheduled banks partakes the character of business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with banks is part of its business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party when the CIT(A) had relied on a remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer which supported the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The AO needs to verify the remittances of the interest income back to the government.