Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the retrospective amendment of Section 201, which states that no disallowance can be made if the payee has filed their return, included the sum in their income, and paid the due tax. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after reviewing medical certificates and hospital bills. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables in the ITES segment and restored one comparable to the TPO for fresh adjudication. The ground regarding negative working capital adjustment was dismissed. The issues of software expenses and loyalty bonus for book profit calculation were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS on the LTC portion involving foreign travel, as there was an error of judgment in interpreting Section 10(5) and Rule 2B. It was also noted that the bank had a bona fide belief and followed a consistent practice for many years.
The Tribunal held that examining the cash book of L&T Ltd. is essential to verify the assessee's claim. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining the relevant cash book entries from both the assessee and the company.
The Tribunal found that the CIT rejected the application on the same day the assessee submitted information and without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in using future actual results to dispute projections made for valuation. The valuation should be based on data available at the time of valuation. The issue was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals) order to be cryptic and lacking in findings on the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the retrospective amendment of Section 201, which states that no disallowance can be made if the payee has filed their return, included the sum in their income, and paid the due tax. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to examine the applicability of Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB, making the assessment order erroneous. Regarding the foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal found that the AO did not examine the issue in proper perspective, justifying the revision.
The Tribunal held that both issues required fresh examination by the AO due to lack of adequate opportunity for the assessee and the debatable nature of the claims. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not precluded from raising objections before the CIT(Appeals) even if they had not objected to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The CIT(Appeals) had erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits.
The tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee for relinquishing their right under the agreement to purchase the property constitutes capital gains. However, the computation of capital gains and the claim for deduction under Section 54F were not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the valuation to the DVO as per Section 50C(2) when the assessee objected to the stamp duty value. It also found that the AO should have made further inquiries regarding the difference in gross receipts, especially since the assessee followed the cash system of accounting.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194LA is applicable only when payment is made by cash, cheque, DD, or similar modes. Since no such payment was made by the assessee for the DRCs, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 154 is permissible under Section 246(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to the effective date of relevant provisions of Section 200A was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's obligation was to make a bonafide estimate of salary. Following a previous ruling, it found that the assessee had made such an estimate and thus discharged its obligation under section 192.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's absence and recalled the ex-parte order. Subsequently, as the assessee opted to settle the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the additions were due to technical defaults, inadvertent omissions, or erroneous admissions, and not due to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted if interest-free own funds exceed investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the average value.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain certain expenses and by making ad-hoc disallowances. The disallowances were either deleted or restricted based on the facts and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside to allow a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit despite the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that there was a genuine ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks prior to April 1, 2016. This ambiguity constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the AIR.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 154 is permissible under Section 246(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to the effective date of relevant provisions of Section 200A was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee might have been confused due to the retrospective amendment of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act regarding the levy of fees under Section 234E.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee might have been confused due to the retrospective amendment of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act regarding the levy of fees under Section 234E.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as notices were issued with considerable delay and the applications were rejected summarily. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee might have been confused due to the retrospective amendment of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act regarding the levy of fees under Section 234E.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's obligation was to make a bonafide estimate of salary, which it had done. The Tribunal quashed the proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain certain expenses and by making ad-hoc disallowances. The disallowances were either deleted or restricted based on the facts and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that there was a genuine ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks prior to April 1, 2016. This ambiguity constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the AIR.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as notices were issued with considerable delay and the applications were rejected summarily. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's obligation was to make a bonafide estimate of salary. Following a previous ruling, it found that the assessee had made such an estimate and thus discharged its obligation under section 192.
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report could not be ignored. Since the DVO's valuation was less than the stamp duty value, it should be adopted for computing capital gains as per Section 50C(3).
The ITAT held that since the underlying additions on which penalties were levied have been deleted by a higher appellate authority (ITAT), the penalties themselves cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 154 is permissible under Section 246(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to the effective date of relevant provisions of Section 200A was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that there was a genuine ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks prior to April 1, 2016. This ambiguity constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the AIR.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's obligation was to make a bonafide estimate of salary. Following a previous ruling, it found that the assessee had made such an estimate and thus discharged its obligation under section 192.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, below the revised CBDT threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA, even if inconsistent. Therefore, the rate prescribed by the DTAA should be applied when PAN is not furnished by non-resident payees.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee might have been confused due to the retrospective amendment of Section 200A of the Income Tax Act regarding the levy of fees under Section 234E.