Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a foreign company, was an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15) of the Act. Consequently, the AO was mandated to follow the procedure of issuing a draft assessment order before passing the final order. The AO's failure to do so was considered a procedural lapse that rendered the assessment bad in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had verified the genuineness of the creditors and that the matter should be remitted back to the AO for further inquiries. The Tribunal also remitted the issues of disallowance of Tyre Retreading Charges and rejection of depreciation on lorries back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to grant registration if conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to grant registration if conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the company's asset (flat) to the shareholder, resulting in an outstanding debit balance, constitutes a loan or advance. This transaction falls within the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), even if not in cash, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to grant registration if conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to grant registration if conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case with additional evidence before the CIT(A). The disputed issue was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the flat by the company to the assessee, even without cash payment, constituted a distribution of property with monetary value. This was considered a loan or advance falling under the definition of deemed dividend.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal directed the deletion of additions made to book profit under Section 115JB. For AY 2011-12, the matter of suppressed sales and related expenditure was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal directed the deletion of additions made to book profit under Section 115JB. For AY 2011-12, the matter of suppressed sales and related expenditure was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that losses already set off cannot be notionally brought forward and adjusted for computing deduction under Section 80IA. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 is applicable due to a change in voting power. However, it directed the AO to examine the conditions of Section 72A for the amalgamating companies' losses and depreciation. Unabsorbed depreciation of the assessee company itself would be governed by Section 32.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid and that the AO is entitled to tax the entire income that comes to notice during reassessment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper findings on the disputed issue.
The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision to use internal comparables for determining the ALP, rejecting the assessee's reliance on external data. However, it remanded the issue of adjustments for export benefits back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the amounts were not 'deposits' as defined under Section 269T, as they were deposited and withdrawn at will. Even if considered a 'loan', Section 271E was applicable only to deposits for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision to use internal comparables for determining the ALP, rejecting the assessee's reliance on external data. However, it remanded the issue of adjustments for export benefits back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of stock-in-trade to a capital asset and the subsequent denial of exemption, even if accepted by the assessee to buy peace, do not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal also found that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) could not be a basis for levying penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to grant registration if conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided various grounds, upholding some decisions of the CIT(A) and allowing some revenue grounds. The issue of reopening of assessment was not adequately addressed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the issue of limitation for reopening the assessment had already been decided by the High Court, affirmed by the Division Bench, and upheld by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP. Therefore, the assessee could not re-agitate this issue before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the delay was due to the Chartered Accountant's negligence, not the assessee's. The object of the Income Tax Act is to assess taxable income, and thus the delay should be condoned.
The Tribunal acknowledged discrepancies in the bills but noted that the expenditure was incurred for business. It considered a 10% disallowance to be just and reasonable, modifying the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's own observation of the assessee's accumulated income of nearly ₹2 Crores over 25 years was sufficient to explain the cash credits. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the cost of construction for the residential property, even though the capital gains were not deposited in the capital gains account scheme. The main condition of Section 54 was complied with by constructing the property within three years of the original asset's sale.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), stating that it would promote the cause of justice. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to dispose of the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that while direct expenditure might be nil, disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) is applicable. Therefore, 0.5% of the average investment value yielding exempt income must be disallowed.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to club expenses, bad debts, and depreciation as not pressed. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A and proportionate interest expenses on funds diverted to associate companies were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of the assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a prima facie adjustment permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act. Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of the assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is outside the scope of prima facie adjustments permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require a scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act. Such changes require scrutiny and notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to pass a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening, this was a curable procedural defect. The assessee had participated in the reassessment proceedings without raising objections at that stage.
The Tribunal found that the matter required verification by the Assessing Officer to ascertain if the recipient had paid taxes on the amount. Accordingly, the disallowance was set aside and remitted back for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had filed Form 15H disclosing the investment, the omission to declare income from it was an inadvertent error. As no column was provided in the return for disclosing such investments, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that mere characterization of an account as NPA is not sufficient to determine uncertainty of recovery. Accrual of interest is a factual matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the uncertainty of recovery.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.
The Tribunal held that the objection was filed within the period of limitation, considering the public holiday. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have considered the objection on its merits.
The Tribunal held that changing the status of an assessee and levying tax at the maximum marginal rate is not a 'prima facie adjustment' permissible under Section 143(1). Such changes require scrutiny after issuing a notice.