Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income or has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments. The PCIT's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, as the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to decide appeals on merit. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and application for additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on sales tax subsidy, finding it to be capital in nature. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, as the AO had not recorded satisfaction. The appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a de-novo appeal hearing.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's claim that cash deposits were sourced from a sister concern's withdrawals. It held that the lower authorities had summarily rejected and not verified the explanation.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society on its surplus funds deposited with banks is attributable to its primary business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained investment to the AO for verification, stating that if the purchase was accounted for, the addition should be restricted to profit. For cash credit, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal allowed a partial disallowance, agreeing with the AO on telephone, vehicle, and petrol expenses but disallowing the ad-hoc portion of other expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer (ACIT, Circle-3(1), Raipur) lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment, based on CBDT instructions for assessees declaring Nil income. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the discount allowed was justified based on the agreement between the parties, which allowed for flexibility in pricing and discounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessee's claim and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was unsustainable as it was passed in the name of a deceased assessee and without properly adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, including the issue of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) who framed the assessment did not issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. This was considered a lack of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue of addition on account of suppression of production did not arise from the order passed under Section 154, which was the basis of the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds of appeal were considered non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's verification of the source of cash deposits was not adequate, justifying the PCIT's invocation of Section 263. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income from other sources is allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii), irrespective of whether income was actually earned or the rate of income earned. The genuineness of the expenditure was not disputed.