Loading ITAT cases…
223 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for non-deduction of TDS before the Assessing Officer. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee to provide all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not speculative and the debt was irrecoverable, thus allowing the deduction for bad debt. The Tribunal also noted that even if not treated as bad debt, it would be allowable as a business loss.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, imposing a cost on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee should be given an opportunity to submit its explanations and documents.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the authorities had not considered the documentary evidence provided. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were set aside, the penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue for de novo adjudication, directing that both appeals be considered together.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of long-term capital gains was bogus. The Assessing Officer was justified in treating the gains as undisclosed income, considering the sudden volatility in the share price and the lack of genuine transactions.
The Tribunal held that the issue was procedural and a bona fide clerical error in quoting the PAN should not lead to denial of TDS credit when tax was admittedly deposited. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and rectification.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and comply with revenue authority notices.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee should be given an opportunity to submit its explanations and documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the documents and evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the alleged long-term capital gains were bogus and the AO was justified in treating them as undisclosed income. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents concerning penny stock transactions and non-genuine capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the addition for insurance premium written back needs verification of the original assessment's outcome. The addition for foreign exchange variation was upheld, and the addition for prior period adjustments was deleted based on Section 43B and High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since only one opportunity was granted, the impugned orders were set aside to allow the assessee another chance to present their case.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and also directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal on limitation. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering the assessee's existing registration and renewal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required details.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was acquitted by the ACB Court and had provided explanations for the investments and expenses, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified. The additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since only one opportunity was granted, the impugned orders were set aside to allow the assessee another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) by following its own precedents. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that only one opportunity was granted, which is insufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee an opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 80AC(ii) and judicial precedents, no deduction under Chapter VIA is allowed if the return of income is filed beyond the due date. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction was justified.
The Tribunal decided that the CIT(E) had erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-compliance without considering the existing registration and renewal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that only one opportunity was granted, which is insufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the entire credit entries in the bank account could not be treated as income. Only the profit element of the transactions was taxable, and the addition was restricted to 8% of the credit entries, with credit for the profit already offered.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of capital grants and subsidies to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decisions. It also ruled that interest income on staff loans and advances should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of the assessee's alternate benchmarking method (CUP with Libor plus approach) was erroneous, as was the DRP's subsequent approval of the adjustment. The matter was set aside to the TPO for re-working the ALP using the CUP method with the Libor plus approach.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of capital grants and subsidies to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decisions. It also ruled that interest income on staff loans and advances should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 1691 lakhs, finding no evidence to support the assessee's claim for write-back of sale of power. The additional grounds challenging the applicability of Section 115JB were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of capital grants and subsidies to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decisions. It also ruled that interest income on staff loans and advances should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions related to repair and maintenance, water charges, gratuity, leave encashment, and capital expenditure was not correct due to discrepancies in verification and debit notes. However, the estimated addition for non-maintenance of inventory records was not sustainable as it was not quantified and was tax-neutral in the long run.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following the decisions of its coordinate benches. The assessee is entitled to this exemption.
The Tribunal held that the payments were arranger fees shared with directors for assisting in a public issue, not sub-brokerage. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 37(1) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act, directing the AO to grant the refund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to provide details of third parties and respond to deposit details, with the AO to adjudicate afresh, considering peak credit arguments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to provide details of third parties and respond to deposit details, with the AO to adjudicate afresh, considering peak credit arguments.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowing exemption under Section 10(10B) for the BSNL VRS compensation. However, an additional ground regarding leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) was dismissed as the relevant notification was not applicable to the assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act, directing the AO to grant the refund.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to provide evidence regarding the public benefit of its activities and expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act, following previous identical decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any refund due.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the source of cash deposits was duly established with documentary evidence, including income from preceding years and bank withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the additional evidence, including the valuation report, submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of LTCG computation back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure the CIT(A) considers the Tribunal's prior decision on the quantum additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO's addition was based on surmises and lacked proper application of mind, especially since he accepted similar short-term capital gains from the same scrip.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowing exemption under Section 10(10B) for the BSNL VRS compensation. However, an additional ground regarding leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) was dismissed as the relevant notification was not applicable to the assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act as it was bound by the interim judicial orders. Consequently, the interest charged under Section 201(1A) also does not survive.