Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 18% net profit of the unaccounted cash receipts for the impugned assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure, finding no cash deficit after considering the opening cash balance.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 18% net profit on unaccounted cash receipts for the impugned assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of unexplained expenditure, finding no cash deficit after considering opening cash balances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable by following the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that if seized documents are used to estimate undisclosed income, the expenditures mentioned therein should also be considered. The Tribunal also noted that the aggregate cash expenditure exceeded the cash receipts, indicating no income escaped assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's modus operandi has been consistent over several previous assessment years, where similar TDS claims were accepted after scrutiny. Citing no change in the assessee's activity for the current year, the Tribunal set aside the Addl./JCIT(A)-1's order and remanded the matter. It directed the Addl./JCIT(A)-1 to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh, considering past assessment orders and allowing the assessee to provide further details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that if receipts recorded in searched documents are believed to be income, then expenditure entries therein should also be believed without requiring further evidence. The assessee's profit rates were also considered.
The Tribunal held that if receipts recorded in searched documents are believed to be income, then entries of expenditure recorded therein should also be believed. The assessee's argument that expenditures should be deducted from receipts was considered.
The Tribunal found that the department was aware of the assessee's 12A registration and is the custodian of such documents. Given that the registration number was mentioned in the return and exemption was granted in subsequent years, the AO erred in denying the Section 11 exemption. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 18% net profit on unaccounted cash receipts for the impugned assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of unexplained expenditure, finding no cash deficit after considering opening cash balances.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 18% net profit on unaccounted cash receipts for the impugned assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of unexplained expenditure, finding no cash deficit after considering opening cash balances.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 18% net profit on unaccounted cash receipts for the impugned assessment year. It also upheld the deletion of additions on account of unexplained expenditure, finding no cash deficit after considering opening cash balances.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society on deposits made from its surplus funds with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Relying on High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee is taxable as a revenue receipt, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Serum Institute of India Private Limited. The amendment to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made subsidies taxable unless used to determine the actual cost of an asset.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and noted that the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation, as hearing notices were allegedly sent to old committee members' email IDs. The assessee was granted another opportunity for adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeal, finding 'reasonable cause'. On merits, it held that interest income earned by a Cooperative Society from investments with Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This decision was based on consistent rulings by Coordinate Benches, which consider Cooperative Banks as essentially Cooperative Societies. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A)'s findings were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal accepted Rs. 1,36,500/- from partnership withdrawals and Rs. 7,00,000/- from refund of advances, noting the Revenue's failure to verify these claims under Section 131. However, the claim of Rs. 3,14,500/- as recovery of receivables was disallowed due to a lack of concrete evidence and details, thus sustaining this part of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine without discussing the merits. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal held that the NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits, which is contrary to legal mandates. The assessee presented new facts regarding agricultural land and its sale consideration during the hearing. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from the Department of Telecommunications (Govt. of India) is exempt under Section 10(10AA)(i). The remaining amount received from BSNL, being less than Rs. 3.00 lakh, is also exempt under Section 10(10AA)(ii). The impugned order denying exemption was reversed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a Cooperative Society from investments in other Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following previous consistent rulings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's request for withdrawal was made due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to move a Miscellaneous Application if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the expense was inadvertently misstated as 'Commission Expenses' instead of 'Construction Expenses'. The Tribunal held that the assessee actually incurred construction expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It noted that the TPO did not specify the exact deficiencies in the required information and that the penalty order was passed without granting adequate opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the original assessment order was quashed by the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, as cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies. The previous orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided comprehensive evidence of the truck's purchase and sale through banking channels, establishing it as a genuine business transaction. As the purchase price exceeded the sale price, the assessee incurred a Short Term Capital Loss, negating any basis for addition. Consequently, Ground of Appeal No. 2 was allowed, and Ground No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the 191-day delay, relying on judicial precedents emphasizing adjudication on merits. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence regarding service tax payments.
The Tribunal observed that for a transfer to be considered complete and capital gains to arise, both possession and consideration must be transferred. Since there were disputes regarding possession and the agreement's cancellation/amendment, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the AO conducted a proper benchmarking analysis for the interest paid on the loan. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication by the AO/TPO after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds related to interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were also set aside for verification and recalculation.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring timely filing of returns for deductions, was not applicable to Section 80P for the assessment years in question as the amendment making it mandatory was prospective. The issue of quantum of deduction was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance (failure to submit a valuation report) without addressing the merits or passing a speaking order. Given the assessee's claim of retaining possession, supported by new documents, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify whether possession was actually transferred and consideration received. The addition for capital gains would be uncalled for if no transfer of possession or consideration occurred.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring timely filing of returns for deductions, was not applicable to Section 80P for the assessment years in question as the amendment making it mandatory was prospective. The issue of quantum of deduction was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a Cooperative Society from investments with other Cooperative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, as Cooperative Banks are essentially Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed due to non-compliance and non-submission of details. However, considering the assessee's plea of non-receipt of notices due to an old email ID, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal due to the pending rectification application and the period of Covid-19. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee cannot be compelled to follow the new tax regime under Section 115BAC if they filed their ITR under the old regime, particularly when the ITR filing predates the CPC's processing. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and set aside the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable and genuine cause for the delay in getting accounts audited, citing reasons such as impounding of books during a survey, delayed access to impounded documents, and the original Chartered Accountant stopping practice, which delayed the audit for the preceding year (2016-17) and consequently the current year. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.