Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that while the audit was completed after the due date, the assessee's submission regarding the delay being beyond its control due to the late appointment of the auditor by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was a crucial point. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's written submissions lacked specific details about when the statutory and tax auditors were appointed by the regulatory authority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that to determine if there was a reasonable cause, it was necessary to verify the appointment dates of the auditors. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the appointment of the statutory/tax auditor and if the appointment was made after the due date for audit under Section 44AB, and the audit was completed within a reasonable time of such appointment, then the penalty under Section 271B would not be justified. The AO was to either enforce or vacate the penalty based on this verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the audit was completed after the due date, the assessee's submission regarding the delay being beyond its control due to the late appointment of the auditor by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was a crucial point. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's written submissions lacked specific details about when the statutory and tax auditors were appointed by the regulatory authority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that to determine if there was a reasonable cause, it was necessary to verify the appointment dates of the auditors. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the appointment of the statutory/tax auditor and if the appointment was made after the due date for audit under Section 44AB, and the audit was completed within a reasonable time of such appointment, then the penalty under Section 271B would not be justified. The AO was to either enforce or vacate the penalty based on this verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the audit was completed after the due date, the assessee's submission regarding the delay being beyond its control due to the late appointment of the auditor by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was a crucial point. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's written submissions lacked specific details about when the statutory and tax auditors were appointed by the regulatory authority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that to determine if there was a reasonable cause, it was necessary to verify the appointment dates of the auditors. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the appointment of the statutory/tax auditor and if the appointment was made after the due date for audit under Section 44AB, and the audit was completed within a reasonable time of such appointment, then the penalty under Section 271B would not be justified. The AO was to either enforce or vacate the penalty based on this verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that while the audit was completed after the due date, the assessee's submission regarding the delay being beyond its control due to the late appointment of the auditor by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was a crucial point. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's written submissions lacked specific details about when the statutory and tax auditors were appointed by the regulatory authority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that to determine if there was a reasonable cause, it was necessary to verify the appointment dates of the auditors. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the appointment of the statutory/tax auditor and if the appointment was made after the due date for audit under Section 44AB, and the audit was completed within a reasonable time of such appointment, then the penalty under Section 271B would not be justified. The AO was to either enforce or vacate the penalty based on this verification. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has already been penalized under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account, a penalty under Section 271B for not getting those non-existent books audited cannot be imposed. The requirement for audit arises only when books are maintained.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the concluded assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and misconceived facts, as the AO was unaware of the prior assessment where the capital gains were considered. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the PCIT could not establish both conditions required to invoke Section 263, the revisionary order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has already been penalized under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account, a penalty under Section 271B for not getting those non-existent books audited cannot be imposed. The requirement for audit arises only when books are maintained.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has already been penalized under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account, a penalty under Section 271B for not getting those non-existent books audited cannot be imposed. The requirement for audit arises only when books are maintained.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause beyond his control. The case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment to verify these documents.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done in the interest of justice, as agreed by both parties, without touching the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemptions)'s order, finding that the assessee's application was filed after the due date. Therefore, the rejection of the application was in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s addition was based on a single transaction value and not actual investment. The assessee's total investment was Rs. 2,10,000/-, resulting in a loss, and no undisclosed income could be inferred.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application for registration in Form 10A in 2009 and had not received any order within the stipulated six months. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had not correctly appreciated the facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee's activities of letting out the Dharamshala for various functions constituted trade, commerce, or business. As the receipts exceeded the threshold limit, the exemption under Section 11 was rightly denied.
The Tribunal held that even if exemption is denied, income should be computed on commercial principles after considering expenses. Assessing gross receipts as income without considering expenses is a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) can only be imposed for the period during which the assessee could have validly filed its return of income, which is up to the period specified under Section 139(4). Therefore, the penalty was restricted to this period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not obligated to get accounts audited as per the third proviso to Section 44AB of the Act, as their turnover was less than Rs. 2 crore. Therefore, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in disposing of the appeal against the Section 154 order independently, and that seeking approval from a superior authority for issuing a Section 154 notice was not invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to clearly specify the default (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notices, thus divesting the assessee of a proper opportunity to explain. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that since the directors admitted the investments were sourced from their undisclosed income, the addition should be made in their hands, not the company's. The addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of cash difference was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal of certain grounds of appeal as requested by the assessee. For Ground No. 2 concerning Pooja & Festival expenses, the Tribunal noted reliance on previous ITAT decisions allowing such expenses as business expenditure. For Ground No. 6 regarding additional depreciation, the Tribunal found that details were lacking and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, was not available for lands acquired under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, such as the NHAI Act, 1956. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's revision order was upheld.
The assessee's authorized representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, was not available for lands acquired under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, such as the NHAI Act, 1956. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's revision order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, was not available for lands acquired under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, such as the NHAI Act, 1956. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's revision order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the source of the excess stock remained unexplained and did not clearly relate to the assessee's regular business activities, it should be taxed as 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the penalty under Section 271B, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the 'reasonable cause' argument for all cases, it implies that for some appeals, the penalty was vacated or the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, as indicated by the overall outcome of the appeals. Secondly, concerning the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank, and dividend received on shares of a co-operative bank, are eligible for deduction. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in State Bank of India Vs. CIT and the Karnataka High Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society. The Tribunal also noted that a jurisdictional Tribunal's order supported the AO's view on Section 80P(2)(d) deduction. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were vacated, and the orders of the AO were restored in cases where the CIT(A) had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The tribunal is correcting a typographical error in its previous order. The reference to the processing of the case by the CPC/AO has been amended from Section 143(1)(a) to Section 154.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not substantiating the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' view and upheld the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not substantiating the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO.