Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the penalty was justified because the assessee's disclosure was not voluntary, given the search and evasive replies. The deletion of the quantum addition by the CIT(A) did not automatically invalidate the penalty, especially when the penalty was not levied on that specific deleted amount.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence, noting they were not considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on these new grounds and evidence.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence, noting they were not considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on these new grounds and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the assessee's claim regarding interest income based on the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the addition on account of differences in Form 26AS and the assessee's books of account, allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the assessee's claim regarding interest income based on the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the addition on account of differences in Form 26AS and the assessee's books of account, allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and without a condonation petition. Furthermore, the appeal was filed by an officer lacking the necessary jurisdiction, rendering it inadmissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs, finding reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee pursuing alternative remedies. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee pursuing alternative remedies. The issues on merits were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the royalty transaction, not the Profit Split Method (PSM). The AO was directed to re-determine the ALP using TNMM.
The Tribunal held that a delay of 51 days is not inordinate and the reasons provided by the assessee are reasonable. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent rectification order by the AO, which restored the Rs. 2 crores addition, was not a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal found that the initial reduction was a conscious decision and any dispute regarding it should have been raised through an appeal, not rectification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance under Section 43B, remanding it to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim that interest on government loans is not covered. The issue of excess liability was remanded to the AO for confirmation from the bank. The addition under Section 69C was also remanded to the AO for verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not raise the issue of reopening of assessment at this stage, as it was not raised before the ITAT in the original proceedings and the High Court's observation about keeping issues open was based on a misrepresentation. However, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not justified, following a precedent where similar deposits from members, recorded in the books, were not considered unexplained money. The acceptance of SBNs prior to the appointed date was also deemed permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons. Regarding the disputed receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the issue with the TDS deductors and consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues for fresh examination, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the issue of provision for bad and doubtful debts needed verification by the AO. Regarding interest expenditure, the Tribunal found a direct nexus with the business activity and allowed it as a deduction under Section 37.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the assessment of interest income under 'Income from other sources' by relying on a Supreme Court decision. The legal ground raised by the assessee was rejected due to lack of supporting material.
The Tribunal found that the agreements and terms of service were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not raise the issue of reopening of assessment at this stage, as it was not raised before the ITAT in the original proceedings and the High Court's observation about keeping issues open was based on a misrepresentation. However, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the agreements and terms of service were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses arising from forward contracts entered into for hedging are allowable as revenue losses, citing Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the claim for sundry balances written off in accordance with accounting standards.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was supported by purchase invoices and a confirmation from the buyer, M/s. Raj Coffee Curing Works. Since the assessee was a non-resident and had provided evidence confirmed by a third party, the addition was not justified.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and restored the issues for fresh examination. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case, subject to payment of costs.
The tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible, considering his age, pension, and the prior cash withdrawal. The tribunal held that the source of the cash deposit was explained.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from liability under Section 201 when deemed an assessee in default. However, if tax is deducted at source in the succeeding year, the demand under Section 201(1) is liable to be cancelled, though interest under Section 201(1A) may be payable.