Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution without considering the merits was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' share of PF and ESIC must be deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts. The due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is irrelevant for this purpose.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not fully prove the source of the cash deposits, the lower authorities also could not dispute the existence of regular business activity. Therefore, a part of the addition was deleted, and a portion was upheld as an estimation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's illiteracy and agriculturist status, and the ex-parte nature of the lower orders, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits was unreasonable. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' share of PF and ESIC must be deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts. The due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is irrelevant for this purpose.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of agricultural activities on ancestral lands and the father's affidavit. Considering the facts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was deemed just and proper out of the Rs. 15,00,000 in dispute.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the application solely on technical grounds of delay was incorrect. The Tribunal interpreted the statutory provisions to avoid absurdity and considered the assessee's provisional approval period.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide at least three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) concerning income from nominal members.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee firm satisfactorily explains the source of investment as coming from its partners, its onus is discharged. Any further inquiry into the source of the partners' funds should be directed at the partners, not the firm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was contrary to the first proviso of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which requires the assessee to explain the source of creditors. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The NFAC's order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not adjudicate the assessee's grounds on merits as required. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when dealing with non-deliberate delays. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. It held that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice and that the NFAC failed to provide a detailed adjudication. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. This decision was based on a similar order in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee, who would bear the onus of proving facts.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 within the due date for filing the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Since Form No. 67 was available with the CPC before processing the return, the denial of credit was unjustified.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's book results were unreliable, the disallowance of sub-contractual expenses should be estimated at 8% of the revenue or the declared book results, whichever is higher. Reversal entries related to sub-contracting parties were also rejected as not requiring independent adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's book results were unreliable, the disallowance of sub-contractual expenses should be estimated at 8% of the revenue or the declared book results, whichever is higher. Reversal entries related to sub-contracting parties were also rejected as not requiring independent adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's book results were unreliable, the disallowance of sub-contractual expenses should be estimated at 8% of the revenue or the declared book results, whichever is higher. Reversal entries related to sub-contracting parties were also rejected as not requiring independent adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's book results were unreliable, the disallowance of sub-contractual expenses should be estimated at 8% of the revenue or the declared book results, whichever is higher. Reversal entries related to sub-contracting parties were also rejected as not requiring independent adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-appearance due to personal circumstances and the CA's inaction. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of receiving the sum as an advance for land aggregation services was not substantiated with cogent evidence. The MOU and subsequent sale deed did not mention any disputes or the assessee's role, and the assessee failed to provide specific details of liabilities or disputes resolved.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly disclosed the interest income in its audited books and computation of income. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to fixed assets with project subsidy and additional depreciation, following previous ITAT decisions. However, it allowed the ground concerning Mahila Netrutva Vikas Gokul Gram expenditure, agreeing with the AO's disallowance due to lack of sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the lower authorities. The payment in cash for the purchase of stock-in-trade, exceeding the prescribed limit, was found to be in violation of Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay as the assessee provided a plausible explanation and the exact date of service of the assessment order was not established. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from surplus funds invested with cooperative banks or scheduled banks is part of its business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is procedural and directory, not mandatory. The belated filing of Form 67 should not be a ground to reject the FTC claim, especially when filed before the processing date.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from fixed deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following the view of the Karnataka High Court and a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the explanation provided by the assessee for the cash deposit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the excess claim, following a High Court decision which stated that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision made in the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Interest income earned on deposits with cooperative banks or scheduled banks is considered business income and eligible for this deduction.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that a mere disallowance of a deduction claim does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on its own prior ruling in the assessee's own case for a similar assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing that allowing both the contribution to the approved gratuity fund and the direct payment would amount to a double deduction, which is prohibited by Section 40A(7).
The Tribunal held that the quantum appeal concerning the addition for which the penalty was levied was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become academic due to the subsequent grant of registration by the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a proportionate deduction under Section 54F for the amount deposited in the Capital Gains Tax Saving Account Scheme. The issue was restored to the AO for allowing this proportionate deduction.
The Tribunal held that the period of non-compliance coincided with the peak of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, and there was no indication that the non-compliance prejudiced the assessment. Therefore, these circumstances constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance.