Loading ITAT cases…
234 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to welfare funds is paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits with necessary evidence. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) towards unexplained investments were upheld.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F was not allowable as the conditions regarding deposit of unutilized capital gains and purchase of a single residential house were not met. The AO's disallowance of the deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable, even if paid beyond the statutory due dates of the PF/ESI Acts. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution was paid before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction would be allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted due inquiries before passing the assessment order, taking a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was justified because the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the relevant facts and had not conducted necessary enquiries. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted due inquiries before passing the assessment order, taking a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
For AY 2013-14, where no exempt income was earned, the appeal was dismissed. For AYs 2014-15 and 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s finding of disallowing only 2% of income was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance computation.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted due inquiries before passing the assessment order, taking a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted due inquiries before passing the assessment order, taking a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
For AY 2013-14, where no exempt income was earned, the appeal was dismissed. For AYs 2014-15 and 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s finding of disallowing only 2% of income was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance computation.
For AY 2013-14, where no exempt income was earned, the appeal was dismissed. For AYs 2014-15 and 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s finding of disallowing only 2% of income was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance computation.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD(6)(iii) clearly excludes commission agents from the presumptive taxation provisions. Therefore, a reasonable profit estimate should be made, and the Tribunal estimated it at 4% of the total credits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted because the delay was not supported by sufficient cause or evidence. The assessee was also absent for multiple hearings.
The Tribunal held that income accrues when it becomes due and is accompanied by a corresponding liability to pay. Since the SAD receipts were subject to verification and approval by customs authorities, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC order was passed without making any further additions. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay and the lack of specific reasons provided by the assessee for the delay. The assessee's counsel relied on the condonation petition and affidavit, without further arguments.
The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay and the lack of specific reasons provided by the assessee for the delay. The assessee's counsel relied on the condonation petition and affidavit, without further arguments.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC order was passed without making any further additions. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of as infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that income accrues when it becomes due and is accompanied by a corresponding liability to pay. Since the SAD receipts were subject to verification and approval by customs authorities, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the filing of Form 10B and re-adjudicate the issue regarding the accumulation of income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of payments to M/s. Haledon International Corporation was not justified as the services were rendered and utilized outside India, thus not falling under fee for technical services. The issue regarding M/s. India Offshore Inc. was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, holding that the twin conditions of rendering and utilization of services in India were not met. Therefore, the payment did not fall under the definition of fee for technical services taxable in India.
The Tribunal, noting the consistent non-appearance of the assessee, had no option but to dismiss the appeal. The assessment was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory details to counter the Assessing Officer's conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the issue of bonus shares to equity shareholders does not amount to a distribution of dividend under Section 2(22)(a) or 2(22)(b) of the Income Tax Act as there is no release of assets. Consequently, Section 115-O imposing DDT is not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of payments to M/s. Haledon International Corporation was not justified as the services were rendered and utilized outside India, thus not falling under fee for technical services. The issue regarding M/s. India Offshore Inc. was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of payments to M/s. Haledon International Corporation was not justified as the services were rendered and utilized outside India, thus not falling under fee for technical services. The issue regarding M/s. India Offshore Inc. was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that additions based on mere estimates, without corroborative material, do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted as the additions were considered estimated and not a fit case for penalty levy.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness and commercial expediency of the payment were not sufficiently proved by the assessee. However, considering the approval from government bodies and previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the assessee's appeal concerning hedging loss, bad-debt, and share trading loss, these issues were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a certain quantity of jewellery, as per CBDT circular and considering the assessee's income, should be considered explained. The addition was directed to be restricted to the value of the remaining jewellery.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search, which was absent in some years. For other years, where the assessment was not concluded, additions were examined on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the assessee's appeal concerning hedging loss, bad-debt, and share trading loss, these issues were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the assessee's appeal concerning hedging loss, bad-debt, and share trading loss, these issues were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Section 36(1)(iii) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the assessee's appeal concerning hedging loss, bad-debt, and share trading loss, these issues were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.