Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, including partners' capital and reserves. It noted that the advance was made in a preceding year and there was a repayment in the current year. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a Karnataka High Court ruling that a contrary Supreme Court decision had overturned the precedent used by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in quashing the reassessment proceedings. It agreed that the reassessment was initiated based on a change of opinion, as the AO had all the necessary information during the original assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on advances to contractors for facilitating construction work is not revenue receipt, following a Supreme Court decision. For royalty and labour welfare cess, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of actual payments.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'Accentia Technologies Ltd.' and 'ICRA Online Ltd.' as comparables. It remanded the case of 'Cades Digitech Pvt. Ltd.' to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration and also remanded 'Microland Limited' for re-examination at the segmental level.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment under Section 153C was upheld by a coordinate bench. Regarding the estimation of business income, it was restricted to 8% of gross receipts. Additions on account of cash and jewellery seized were deleted, following previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment under Section 153C was upheld by a coordinate bench. Regarding the estimation of business income, it was restricted to 8% of gross receipts. Additions on account of cash and jewellery seized were deleted, following previous rulings.
The Tribunal noted that the initial agreement and the final sale involved different parties and that the assessee had not offered capital gains in 1993. The Tribunal found that Section 50C should be considered from the date of the initial agreement and set aside the issue to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment under Section 153C was upheld by a coordinate bench. Regarding the estimation of business income, it was restricted to 8% of gross receipts. Additions on account of cash and jewellery seized were deleted, following previous rulings.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue notice to the assessee at the correct address and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. This was because both assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and had filed the necessary forms.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. This was because both assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and had filed the necessary forms.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and submitting the necessary forms.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following the assessee's withdrawal of its appeal due to settlement under the MAP. The issues in the revenue's appeal were also considered settled under the MAP.
The Tribunal, following its practice in similar cases, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if the formalities under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were completed.
The Tribunal held that RBI regulations concerning FDI policy are not applicable to determine the allowability of interest on CCDs for the pre-conversion period under the Income Tax Act. The matter of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the interest was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law as it violated the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. This proviso prevents action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years if registration is subsequently granted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB could not be invoked as the assessee was not subjected to a search under Section 132 of the Act. This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling on identical issues for prior assessment years.
The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal based on a letter filed by the assessee seeking withdrawal. The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law as it violated the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. This proviso prevents action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years if registration is subsequently granted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law as it violated the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. This proviso prevents action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years if registration is subsequently granted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law as it violated the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. This proviso prevents action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years if registration is subsequently granted.
The Tribunal held that RBI regulations concerning FDI policy are not applicable to determine the allowability of interest on CCDs for the pre-conversion period under the Income Tax Act. The matter of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the interest was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law as it violated the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. This proviso prevents action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years if registration is subsequently granted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal ground regarding the validity of rectification proceedings as it goes to the root of the matter. The CIT(A) failed to do so. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This decision followed the assessee's withdrawal of its appeal due to the settlement of issues under the MAP.
The Tribunal, following its practice in similar cases, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if the formalities under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were completed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals after noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee was also directed to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, restored the issue of bad debts written off to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish complete details regarding the nature of transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) order was passed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to fully prove the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The subsequent filing of returns by Shri Prabhulingappa was considered an afterthought.
The Tribunal held that the contribution to BATF was for business expediency and allowed it as a deduction under Section 37(1). Regarding audit fees, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify if the recipient had offered the income for taxation.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of actual petrol and diesel expenses incurred by cab owners was not subject to TDS under Section 194C. However, the issue of whether the payments for vehicle hire charges themselves attracted Section 194C was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, stating that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting it before the AO due to the AR's illness. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in treating the arm's length price as 'nil' solely based on the belief that the assessee did not need the services or did not derive financial benefit. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-evaluate the arm's length price based on submitted documents and appropriate methods.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeals had been settled under the MAP. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the scheme provides for settlement, the tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the scheme provides for settlement, the tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the capital gains were substantively assessed in AY 2011-12 and that assessment became final, a protective assessment for the same gains in AY 2015-16 was not permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's registered office shifting. It held that the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, should be reconsidered in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision.