Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to provide evidence for the cash deposits. The penalty proceedings were also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The disputed addition was below the threshold, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to support his cash sales and business operations.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that if selling commission is part of operating costs for benchmarking under the Transactional Net Margin Method, it should not be isolated as a separate transaction. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises, not the entire entity's transactions. Citing CIT vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 70 taxmann.com 329 (Bom.), the Tribunal noted that Chapter X mandates adjustments only for international transactions, not those with independent third parties. Regarding delayed receivables, the Tribunal found that delayed trade receivables are an international transaction under Section 92B read with Section 92F(v). However, it directed the AO/TPO to compute and grant a working capital adjustment for the international transaction of 'sale of finished goods'. The Tribunal reasoned that once a working capital adjustment is granted under TNMM benchmarking, the impact of delayed receivables is subsumed, and no separate notional interest adjustment is warranted. Thus, grounds related to interest on delayed receivables were allowed for statistical purposes. Concerning unabsorbed depreciation, the Tribunal held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2) can only be set off against profits from business, not income from other sources. Therefore, this ground was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's calculation of interest under section 234C was correct, considering relief under section 90 and TDS credit. The Assessing Officer's computation was not supported.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause as per Supreme Court guidelines. The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the assessee does not benefit from the delay.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to support his cash sales and business operations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons sufficient based on Supreme Court guidelines. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for a service permanent establishment in India were not met as the reimbursements were for expenses incurred remotely without any physical presence in India. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case due to a short notice period and a change in incumbent. The high fee collection also requires examination.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the year of executing the JDA, not when the constructed area is handed over. It also held that additions based on uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the entire difference in stock cannot be treated as income, but only the profit element on unaccounted sales should be taxed. The Assessing Officer was directed to adopt a net profit of 6% on unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal held that the technical error in Form-35 should not prevent an appeal from being adjudicated on merit, especially when the grounds of appeal clearly indicated the assessee's grievance against the assessment order. However, the assessee's non-participation before the CIT(A) was also noted.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that their submissions were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to examine the submissions and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient customer-wise details and supporting documents for the cash deposits, and the Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries to disprove the explanation.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the mode of payment (cash vs. bank) alone cannot determine the genuineness of an expense. It emphasized the need to examine the cash book, sales records, and other supporting evidence to ascertain if the expenditure was actually incurred and related to the assessee's activities.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow exemption under Section 10(10B) on the VRS compensation received.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow exemption under Section 10(10B) on the VRS compensation received.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that when a search and seizure action is undertaken, and incriminating material is found, the reassessment must be initiated under Section 153A, not Section 147. The notice under Section 147 and subsequent actions were deemed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that when a search and seizure action is undertaken, and incriminating material is found, the reassessment must be initiated under Section 153A, not Section 147. The notice under Section 147 and subsequent actions were deemed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessments cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee was not provided with the opportunity for cross-examination.