Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal restored both issues to the AO for fresh examination. This was based on additional evidence showing the flats were internally connected and the AO's failure to consider construction cost.
The Tribunal noted that the amendment to the trust deed was approved after the assessment. Therefore, the issue of exemption under Section 11 requires fresh examination. The issues of depreciation and brought forward deficit also need reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 194C to an individual depends on whether their accounts were liable for audit under Section 44AB in the immediately preceding financial year. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine if the assessee maintained books of account for the preceding year and if they were liable for audit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies to the shareholder receiving the loan, not the company advancing it, and thus deleted the deemed dividend addition. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. For Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already restored the matter for fresh examination. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed a Karnataka High Court order which remanded the issue to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of the brother and mother were established, and the transactions with blood relatives were genuine, thus deleting the addition of Rs. 16.00 lakhs. The addition of Rs. 14.00 lakhs from past withdrawals was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it did not get sufficient opportunity to present its case. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for verification and examination, setting aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The assessees were to be provided an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer based on written submissions, despite the assessee's inability to appear. To meet the ends of justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned, upholding the revised agricultural income of Rs. 3.25 lakhs. The assessee's claim of higher income was not substantiated with evidence.
The Tribunal held that while the right to cross-examine is not absolute, it must be granted if the statements used are not secondary or subordinate evidence. The AO was directed to provide all statements to the assessee and grant cross-examination if necessary, re-examining the case thereafter.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalty under Section 271C, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at source due to being a small trader in a small town and lacking knowledge of TDS provisions. The Tribunal also noted the default was discovered during a survey.
The Tribunal held that for online payments, the credit to the government account is instant. Relying on a previous ITAT decision and CBDT circulars, it was decided that the date of payment should be considered the date of remittance, not the date reflected in the OLTAS if it's later due to technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that condonation petitions should be considered liberally, especially when the delay is not at the assessee's fault. The Tribunal condoned the 80-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was then admitted for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's non-appearance before the AO and CIT(A). It held that tax liability must be determined according to law, not due to non-compliance, and set aside the CIT(A) order for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the delay in furnishing the tax audit report constituted a technical venial breach that did not cause any loss to the exchequer. Following a precedent, the penalty was deleted as the audit report was available to the AO before the assessment was completed.
The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty, based on historical data and past experience, is allowable. For stock obsolescence, the principle of valuing inventory at cost or net realizable value is accepted, but the assessee needs to provide details. Both issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were for services rendered outside India and the non-resident recipients did not have a Permanent Establishment in India, the payments were not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, there was no obligation to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee filing submissions. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the delay deserves to be condoned.
The Tribunal held that for online payments, the credit to the government account is instant. Relying on a previous ITAT decision and CBDT circulars, it was decided that the date of payment should be considered the date of remittance, not the date reflected in the OLTAS if it's later due to technical reasons.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the delay deserves to be condoned.
The Tribunal held that for online payments, the credit to the government account is instant. Relying on a previous ITAT decision and CBDT circulars, it was decided that the date of payment should be considered the date of remittance, not the date reflected in the OLTAS if it's later due to technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that for online payments, the credit to the government account is instant. Relying on a previous ITAT decision and CBDT circulars, it was decided that the date of payment should be considered the date of remittance, not the date reflected in the OLTAS if it's later due to technical reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following earlier ITAT rulings and CBDT circulars. It held that co-operative banks were not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to their members for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that RPM is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price. However, it found that the comparables selected by the TPO and upheld by the DRP were not in the trading segment. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to conduct a fresh comparability analysis including companies in the trading segment.
The Tribunal held that the amendment relied upon by the AO was substituted by Finance Act 2001, reinstating the original provisions allowing carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation without a time limit. Therefore, the assessee's claim was valid.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained under Section 41(1) as the conditions for remission or cessation of trading liability were not met. It also noted that the liabilities were not incurred in the relevant assessment year for Section 68.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalty under Section 271C, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the failure to deduct tax at source due to being a small trader in a small town with a lack of knowledge of TDS provisions. The Tribunal also noted the default was discovered during a survey.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalty under Section 271C, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at source due to being a small trader in a small town and lacking knowledge of TDS provisions. The Tribunal also noted the default was discovered during a survey.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the delay was not willful. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance was called for regarding investment by way of share application money, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was bad in law as the disallowance under Section 14A should not be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision. Therefore, the CIT's revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention regarding the violation of Rule 46A. Consequently, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that all 12 residential units qualify as 'a residential house' for Section 54F deduction, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Regarding Section 50C, the matter was restored to the AO to obtain a DVO report.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal and remanded the issue back to the TPO. The TPO is directed to re-examine the issue afresh, considering the assessee's submissions and following the prescribed procedure for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons provided were similar to a co-owner's case where delay was condoned. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective and requires verification of the payee's tax compliance. The CIT(A) had correctly followed a coordinate bench decision and restored the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, having agreed to the addition during assessment due to no immediate tax effect, could still challenge it, especially in light of subsequent government notifications exempting start-up companies. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that expenses disallowed by the assessee and accepted by the AO should be excluded from operating costs for transfer pricing calculations. This would lead to a corresponding increase in net profit and potentially bring international transactions to arm's length.