Loading ITAT cases…
379 tribunal orders from the Rajkot bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 379 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the tax credit allowable under section 115JAA includes surcharge and cess components, citing various judicial precedents. Therefore, the denial of credit to the extent of surcharge and cess was a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on road construction, even if enduring, facilitated business operations without acquiring a capital asset or augmenting the profit-making structure. The recurring nature of such expenses further supported its revenue character.
The Tribunal held that a net profit of 2% is justifiable and reasonable in this line of business, considering various judicial precedents. The disallowance made by the AO was considered excessive.
The Tribunal held that interest accrued on NPAs is taxable only on receipt basis, even for entities following the mercantile system of accounting, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is available to cooperative banks irrespective of whether they have rural advances.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 270A. It was held that the penalty was not sustainable as the AO failed to establish that the assessees had misreported their income by not offering the 'on-money' for taxation.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 270A. It was held that the penalty was not sustainable as the AO failed to establish that the assessees had misreported their income by not offering the 'on-money' for taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee sufficiently demonstrated that the cash deposits were made from past savings and withdrawals. It also found that the interest income earned was below the taxable limit for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest accrued on NPAs is taxable only on receipt basis, even for entities following the mercantile system of accounting, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is available to cooperative banks irrespective of whether they have rural advances.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed as there was no proper service of notice and the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds. The adjournment application filed on medical grounds was also not disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the Gujarat High Court's observations regarding the eligibility of interest income from co-operative banks for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found that such income is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification, noting the assessee's non-cooperative attitude throughout the proceedings. This was subject to the assessee paying a nominal cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not fully consider the facts and the relevant CBDT circular. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the impact of CBDT Circular No. 6/2020 and the fact that Form 10 was filed within the due date and the return of income was filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(4).
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had made sufficient inquiry during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had provided explanations regarding the interest expenses, and the Pr.CIT's view that the AO had not conducted proper inquiry was not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(2)(b) specifically requires the goods to be raised or grown by the members of the society. The statement from the society's 'Mantri' confirming procurement from non-members was considered valid, distinguishing it from third-party statements.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to properly verify records. The CIT(A) deleted additions without any material, and the Assessing Officer passed a best judgment assessment without proper verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal, following a precedent, held that penalty for non-compliance with notices should be imposed for the first default only and not for each subsequent notice. Therefore, the penalty was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide reasonable cause for the 51-day delay before the CIT(A) and the 42-day delay before the ITAT. No genuine cause was established to condone these delays.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of past savings and disallowance of gift from wife were not supported by valid material or reasons. Therefore, the disallowances were deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee's explanation of shifting responsibility to a part-time accountant was not accepted as a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices and did not appear before the appellate authorities.
The Tribunal held that if the amount has already been disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS in the assessment proceedings, then no further demand can be raised under Section 201(1) and 201(1A). The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on additions made due to the legal fiction created by section 50C of the Act, as it does not automatically imply furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed additions despite the assessee producing material on record. To ensure justice, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of documents.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in the cause title of its previous order. It was rectified to reflect the correct respondent name as "D.C.I.T. Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar".
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was validly served on the last known address, and the transfer through a sale deed constituted a valid transaction for capital gains. However, the issue of determining the sale consideration under section 50C was set aside to the AO for reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustainable as it was based on the same set of documents available during the original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that there is no time limit prescribed for filing declarations under Section 206C(1A) and the assessee filed delayed declarations due to a bona fide belief. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of the declarations and not be held as 'assessee-in-default'.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a statement made during search proceedings, especially when it is retracted and not corroborated by tangible material. The Tribunal also noted that land transactions mentioned in seized documents were already considered in the assessment of another individual.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the CIT(A) had made a reasonable ad-hoc disallowance for purchases and that the assessee had provided satisfactory evidence for the loans, including bank statements and PAN details, which were considered sufficient in this case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer had any grievance as the registration was granted. Therefore, the assessee sought withdrawal of its appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Employees' Provident Fund contribution had been decided against the assessee and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was found to have no merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated to undertake the OMT project, is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). It further clarified that operating and maintaining an existing infrastructure facility also qualifies for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of books of accounts, the assessee's explanation for the difference in turnover was untenable. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action of treating total bank deposits as turnover and applying an 8% net profit rate, noting the assessee's own admission of a 6% net profit.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from the Delhi Tribunal, held that while non-compliance with notices warrants penalty, imposing it for each instance of default is not the intention of the legislature. The penalty should be restricted to the first default.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a further opportunity to be heard and present evidence. This was done for the ends of justice.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, considering the assessee's circumstances and the need for proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The tribunal set aside the penalty order and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence (confirmation letter) and that the AO and CIT(A) failed to cross-verify the transaction with the third party before disbelieving the confirmation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) could have issued further notices to obtain the required documents. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.