Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. Following the jurisdictional High Court's principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was cancelled.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of the estimated profit from 5% to 2% to be fair and reasonable, considering the assessee's nature as a quasi-government body dealing with essential commodities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C) as it failed to prove its sole purpose was educational. However, it directed the AO to estimate income at 20% of gross receipts and ruled that the income should be taxed at normal rates, not the maximum marginal rate, as the assessee is a society registered under the Societies Act.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the association's primary object was to protect the interests of its members, not to carry out activities for the public at large or for general public utility. Therefore, it was not eligible for registration under section 12AA.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 5.5% of gross receipts to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that income derived from property held under a trust wholly for charitable purposes, to the extent not exempt under sections 11 and 12, should be taxed at the normal rates applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP), not at the maximum marginal rate. Adjustments under section 143(1) for debatable issues are not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. Following the jurisdictional High Court's principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was cancelled.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of the estimated profit from 5% to 2% to be fair and reasonable, considering the assessee's nature as a quasi-government body dealing with essential commodities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not conduct a clinical examination of the facts or call for a remand report. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification of receipts as per 26AS and income offered in the P&L account.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted within jurisdiction as directed by the Commissioner under Section 263, and dismissed the assessee's grounds related to this. For the site purchase payments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order which restricted the addition.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(23C)(vi) requires an educational institution to exist solely for educational purposes. Since the assessee had an additional object of providing recreational facilities, it did not meet this requirement.
The Tribunal found that the exact purchase figures from APBCL were not conclusively established. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for further verification of the correct purchase amounts and re-determination of income.
The tribunal noted the substantial delay in filing the appeal and the lack of any petition for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without proceeding to the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved that the investment originated from withdrawals from its bank account. The fact that the transaction was in cash was deemed immaterial as the source of funds was explained and documented.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)'s approach of allowing credit for deposits within 3 days of withdrawal lacked a scientific basis, outright denial of credit for withdrawals was also illogical. The Tribunal estimated profit on the unexplained deposits.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had overlooked the main charitable objects of the assessee while rejecting the registration. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted within jurisdiction as directed by the Commissioner under Section 263, and dismissed the assessee's grounds related to this. For the site purchase payments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order which restricted the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence for claiming exemption from TDS. The failure to furnish Form 15-J and Form 15-I rendered the proviso to Section 194C inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted within jurisdiction as directed by the Commissioner under Section 263, and dismissed the assessee's grounds related to this. For the site purchase payments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order which restricted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the statements of the benamidars were vague and the assessee did not cooperate with the assessment. The matter was remitted back to the AO for detailed verification of the source and destination of the Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that since the transaction was between father and son, was genuine, and purely personal, it did not amount to a violation of Section 269SS, and therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs.10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting fresh evidence without a remand report and that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions before the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was justified.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT circular No. 21/2015, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's husband lacked the financial capacity to provide the gift. Regarding the money lending business, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO had not adequately verified the transactions and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.
The Tribunal held that for unsecured loans from Smt. S.V. Padmaja and Sri Gopisetty Satya Rao, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and banking transactions, thus deleting the additions. For gifts from Sri Guru Jayadev and Smt. Guru Kalyani, the Tribunal found that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of the donors through confirmations, IT returns, and balance sheets, and deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs.10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the AO's allowance of only 10% of expenditure to be arbitrary and too low. Considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow 40% of the expenditure claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the assessee's ITR for AY 2009-10 and grant credit for any available capital. Since this direction was in line with the assessee's request, no further relief was granted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred by rejecting the registration without considering the stated objectives of the trust. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed him to reconsider the application based on the trust's objectives.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without making necessary inquiries regarding the exemption claim. The Commissioner's order directing further inquiry was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal held that a 5% net profit on total purchases is a reasonable estimation for the IMFL business, following a coordinate bench decision. The addition for unexplained expenditure was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or produce lenders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gifts, especially after his friend denied making any gift. The affidavit from the mother was considered an afterthought. The commission payment was also found to be excessive.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that as per RBI prudential norms, interest on NPAs is recognized on actual receipt basis, not accrual basis. Therefore, the assessee was correct in not offering such interest as income. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had verified the salary payments on multiple occasions and taken a conscious decision that the payments were indeed salaries and not commission. Therefore, the revision proceedings under Section 263 were not warranted.
The Tribunal held that payments made for carriage of goods by railways, even if paid to an intermediary like CONCOR, are excluded from the definition of 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, no TDS was required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the rent admitted by the assessee was reasonable, considering the peculiar circumstances of the property being partly used by the owner and the inability to allow cross-examination of parties whose rental agreements were used by the AO. The appeal was allowed on this point.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a 15% deduction towards rate variation between CPWD and State PWD rates, and a further 10% deduction for self-supervision charges from the DVO's valuation. The AO was directed to recompute the undisclosed investment accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. The Tribunal noted that incriminating material was found during a search conducted in the case of M/s. Sai Lakshmi Township Pvt. Ltd. and N. Suryanarayana Reddy, which implicated the assessee in unaccounted investment in land. According to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, when incriminating material is found during a search in the case of a person other than the assessee, the assessment should be made under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Tribunal referred to the non-obstante clause of Section 153A and the principles laid down in judicial precedents, stating that in cases where assessment proceedings are not pending at the time of search, the AO should reopen assessments under Section 153A. However, when incriminating material is found in the case of a third party, Section 153C is the correct provision to invoke. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 was quashed, and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was held to be a nullity, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the sources of capital were explained and transactions were through bank accounts, with partners declaring these investments in their individual returns which were assessed by their respective AOs.
The Tribunal held that the sale deed established the property as a residential house, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The conditions for deduction under Section 54F were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153C can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, not on items already accounted for in the books. Since the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired before the search, the assessment was considered completed and did not abate.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153C can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, not on items already accounted for in the books. Since the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired before the search, the assessment was considered completed and did not abate.