Loading ITAT cases…
149 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid reasons for not filing submissions and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and adjudicate the matter afresh after the assessee files necessary details.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Sales Promotion Expenses. The assessee failed to provide primary details of the recipients, thus not establishing the commercial expediency and business purpose of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decisions were in order and did not require interference, as the grounds raised by the assessee were general and did not challenge any specific additions, especially since the AO accepted the returned income.
The Tribunal held that the assignment deed was valid and the assessee was entitled to Section 54F deduction. For the sundry creditor issue, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp chats, being digital records seized during the search, fall under the definition of 'books of account' and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the IT Act. The assessees failed to rebut this presumption.
The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp chats, being digital records seized during the search, fall under the definition of 'books of account' and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the IT Act. The assessees failed to rebut this presumption.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the objects and activities of the foundation. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to submit necessary details.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. However, it remanded the matter for verification of a potential double addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the objects and activities of the foundation. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to submit necessary details.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks, even after the insertion of Section 80P(4). This decision followed previous rulings by the Pune Benches.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is received, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was considered retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) does not deny deduction for interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks, as long as the society itself is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal found that the AO provided insufficient time for the assessee to raise objections during rectification proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the genuineness of the dividend receipt with necessary evidence.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and the first appellate orders were passed ex parte, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order, lacking a signature and DIN, was invalid as per CBDT Circular 19/2019 and relevant High Court decisions. Consequently, the order was deemed never issued and had no legal effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessee voluntarily submitted data showing expenses on religious activities exceeded the 5% limit of total income. The Tribunal also clarified that 12AA registration does not automatically grant 80G exemption.
The Tribunal found inherent discrepancies in the facts presented, particularly regarding the exact quantum of the loan and the evidence provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that additions to opening balances of creditors were not justified as no fresh transactions occurred and full additions were not made in the preceding year. The disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenses was deleted based on sufficient interest-free funds available to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to discuss the trust's objects and activities and provide categorical findings on their charitable nature, after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that interest income from nominal members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as nominal members are included in the definition of 'member' under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Similarly, commission earned from collecting electricity bills was also held to be eligible for deduction as a business activity.
The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the extended due date and therefore, the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) based on Section 80AC was untenable. The deduction was directed to be granted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a real, reasonable, and effective opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was deprived of adequate time to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications violated the principle of natural justice by not providing a real, reasonable, and effective opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was deprived of adequate time to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the submissions and provide an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing and liberty to lead fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) does not deny eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d) for cooperative societies on interest income earned from deposits with other cooperative banks. Therefore, the deduction should be granted.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent and that of the assessee for a prior assessment year, held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable for interest income earned from deposits with nationalized banks.
The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the assessee's claim (initially 'tenant', later 'seller'). Considering additional evidence presented, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification of the agreement and proper classification of the payment.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order was unsustainable. It clarified that while cooperative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), this does not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from deposits with another cooperative society.
The Tribunal held that while cooperative banks are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4) after 2007, a cooperative society can still claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from deposits with another cooperative society.
The Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal clarified that the matter requires remission to the AO/TPO to examine the benchmarking analysis considering additional evidence. The original order's intent regarding the benchmarking of raw material import transactions remains unchanged.
The Tribunal held that its earlier order was based on a jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision, which considered the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the limb of concealment or inaccurate particulars as fatal to penalty proceedings. Therefore, no apparent mistake was found in the original order.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the denial of deduction under Section 80P for a belatedly filed return processed under Section 143(1) was not justified. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the CPC to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not issued a prior intimation of the proposed adjustment under the proviso to Section 143(1), which is a violation of natural justice and mandatory procedure. Therefore, the intimation under Section 143(1) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the second transaction (sale of plots) should be the fair market value of the plots on the date of allotment, not the amount paid to CIDCO. Since this value was not available, the matter was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) does not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits with a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application violated the principle of natural justice as the appellant was not given a reasonable and effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee were for a non-exclusive license to use engineering development work, not for acquiring ownership of intellectual property. Therefore, the expenditure was revenue in nature.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6.00 crore as it was a conversion of unsecured loans into share capital through journal entries. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to creditors and advances from customers, as the assessee admitted these were running accounts or opening balances.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not containing the mandatory DIN, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Therefore, delving into the merits of the case was unnecessary.
The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment notice was issued beyond the four-year period from the end of the assessment year, and the expenses were already examined in the original assessment.