Loading ITAT cases…
54 orders · Page 1 of 2
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal adjudicated the issues based on its earlier decision for the lead years. Several grounds raised by the assessee, including those related to disallowance of stock obsolescence, advertisement and promotion expenses, market research expenses, provision for post-retirement medical benefits, and product development expenses, were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its earlier pronouncements for the lead years. Several grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, while an additional ground was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the amendment of Section 54F effective from 01.04.2015), there was no statutory bar to claiming deductions for investments made outside India. The Tribunal followed the ratio of the Gujarat High Court and a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal adjudicated the issues based on a prior decision for lead years. Several grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, including those related to disallowance of stock obsolescence, advertisement and promotion expenses, market research expenses, provision for post-retirement medical benefits, and product development expenses.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while an order directing a special audit is generally not appealable, the validity of such an order can be challenged when the assessment order itself is being contested as barred by limitation. The Tribunal found the reference to special audit in this case to be invalid as it was made to obtain further information rather than due to complexity in accounts, rendering the subsequent assessment order void.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior ruling for the lead assessment years. Several grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing date, is not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, following previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing date, is not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, following previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that disallowances for delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, cannot be made under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the non-furnishing of Form 10DA was due to technical reasons beyond the assessee's control and the defect was subsequently cured. The assessee's explanation for the delay was accepted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing date, is not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, following previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to ESI and EPF, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not permissible under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, following earlier coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not sustainable. The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that additions sustained by the CIT(A) on the basis of a valuation report were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the reference to the valuation cell. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had not provided cogent reasons for sustaining additions on account of household expenses.
The Tribunal held that additions sustained by the CIT(A) on the basis of a valuation report were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the reference to the valuation cell. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had not provided cogent reasons for sustaining additions on account of household expenses.
The Tribunal held that additions sustained by the CIT(A) on the basis of a valuation report were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the reference to the valuation cell. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had not provided cogent reasons for sustaining additions on account of household expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the parties from whom loans were obtained for the investment. The AO's addition was based on assumptions and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the AO has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the directions given by the higher authorities while giving effect to appellate orders. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not directed the reduction of the amount from the cost of assets or disallowed depreciation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the AO's stand regarding the initial information and the turnover assessed. It also observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without ensuring proper service of notices to the assessee, violating the principle of 'audi alteram partem'.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO based on seized documents were not substantiated. The CIT(A) had deleted most of these additions, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with that decision.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO based on seized documents were not substantiated. The CIT(A) had deleted most of these additions, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with that decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the proportionate amount computed by the assessee, following a previous decision in a group company case. The addition on account of interest paid on working capital limit was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on seized documents that were not 'speaking documents' and lacked complete details. The assessee's explanations regarding proposals and estimates were considered, and the CIT(A)'s deletions were upheld in part.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions paid after the due date under respective statutes but before filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is not permissible. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and that notices for hearing were not effectively served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the proportionate amount computed by the assessee, following a previous decision in a group company case. The disallowance on account of interest paid on working capital was deleted, also following a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of late deposit of PF and ESI contributions, where the deposits were made before filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of late deposit of PF and ESI contributions, where the deposits were made before filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of late deposit of PF and ESI contributions, where the deposits were made before filing the return of income, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendment inserting Explanation 2 was not retrospective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the payments to dealers for incentives did not fall under Section 194H as it was not an agency arrangement. Regarding payments for online advertising, the Tribunal also agreed that the CIT(A) correctly held that Section 194C was applicable and not Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that while the AO has the power to determine the annual value of a property, this determination must be based on reasonable rent, ideally not exceeding standard rent or municipal valuation. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance solely on the valuer's report without considering municipal or standard rent to be arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It found that the assessee's Memorandum of Association permitted leasing out property, and that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view in law.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the consequent addition were not justified. The assessee had provided explanations for the fluctuations in purchase rates, supported by a market committee certificate, and no defects were found in the maintained books of account.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the advances were for land purchase at arm's length price and that salary payments were not excessive or unreasonable given the services rendered. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was not validly served on the assessee. Consequently, the assessment framed was without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the additions were either disclosed in the tax audit report, were bonafide mistakes, or were immaterial given the substantial losses returned by the assessee. Therefore, no penalty was leviable under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the reference for a special audit was invalid and consequently, the assessment orders passed in the extended time were barred by limitation. This decision followed a previous ruling in a similar case involving a sister concern.
The Tribunal held that the documents found during the survey did not establish the source of the surrendered income as business or profession. The assessee's explanation offered before the Tribunal was found to be unsubstantiated, and the AO's acceptance of the surrendered income as business income without proper inquiry was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made based on these amendments for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.