Loading ITAT cases…
33 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence regarding advance information from loan creditors about filing Form 15G/15H. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified, and the order of the CIT(A) was fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the sale transaction was completed in FY 2012-13 as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, based on the recitals in the registered sale deed confirming receipt of full consideration and delivery of possession. Therefore, the fair market value applicable for FY 2012-13 should be adopted.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution to PF & ESI was remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, though clarificatory, was effective from a later date.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) and that the appeals were decided ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) and that the appeals were decided ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided PAN, Aadhar, and bank details for most creditors, two transactions totaling Rs. 4,00,000/- remained unexplained. The remaining loan transactions were considered explained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a factual inaccuracy regarding the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that payments made to contractors were below the taxable limits, thus not requiring PAN or TDS deduction under section 194C. The proviso to section 139(5B) exempts persons whose total income is not chargeable to tax from obtaining a PAN.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions of converting land to non-agricultural status and dividing it into plots for sale, even to a company in which he is a director, was a natural way to exploit an investment for better consideration. Since the assessee was not in the business of real estate, this was considered permissible.
The Tribunal held that forming a trust for CSR activities does not automatically disqualify it for registration under Section 12AA. The objects of the trust were found to be charitable and falling under Section 2(15) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but directed the AO to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale, following a precedent. One appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made by the CPC under section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues. It further held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI is an allowable deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, following various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues. Since the employee PF/ESI contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that taxing the income at the maximum marginal rate was incorrect as Section 167B excludes societies registered under the Societies Registration Act from this provision. The Tribunal also noted that the gross receipts were below the basic exemption limit.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the revisionary order was time-barred and that the AO had taken a plausible view by allowing the expenditure when the assessee complied with Section 194C(6), even if Section 194C(7) was violated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not press the grounds of appeal as the appeal against an order under Section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues. Since the employee PF/ESI contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that payments made to contractors were below the taxable limits, thus not requiring PAN or TDS deduction under section 194C. The proviso to section 139(5B) exempts persons whose total income is not chargeable to tax from obtaining a PAN.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but directed the AO to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale, following a precedent. One appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest paid to the related party, agreeing with the lower authorities that the lack of a formal agreement and documentary evidence for business use made the payment unsubstantiated. However, the CIT(A) had allowed the Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263 by directing the AO to examine issues beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The assessment was limited to verifying cash deposits, and the PCIT could not broaden the scope of the original assessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that agricultural produce was used for feeding orphanage inmates, considering it a charitable activity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) for debatable issues are not permissible. It further held that employees' contribution to PF is allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, following various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that while the identity and genuineness of transactions with associates were established, their creditworthiness was not fully proven. The CIT(A)'s estimation of investment based on land holdings and income was deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's invocation of powers under Section 263 was valid in law, as there was no specific mention of the assessee's submissions in the Assessing Officer's order. Therefore, the order of the Pr. CIT was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that when income is estimated, all deductions are deemed to have been taken into account. Therefore, further deductions like depreciation cannot be allowed from the estimated income. The CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was a state-funded university primarily engaged in education, a charitable activity. Previous exemptions and bonafide lack of awareness regarding return filing requirements were considered.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence for the cash deposits and withdrawals. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for alleged non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution to PF & ESI deducted by the assessee was remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had to pass an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.