Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment years in question is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that a defective penalty notice is a jurisdictional issue. Since the assessee raised this issue before the CIT(A) for the first time, and the jurisdictional High Court has held that initiation of penalty proceedings on a defective notice is invalid, the penalty is deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-determine the most appropriate method for calculating the ALP.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal held that amounts transferred to reserve funds were an appropriation of profits and not deductible. However, regarding listing fees, the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of uncertainty in recovery needed fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the carry forward of loss should be allowed as the original return was filed within the due date. The Tribunal noted that any defects due to unaudited accounts could be addressed through penalties.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have summarily dismissed the appeals without considering the evidence for the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the condonation of delay after considering the supporting evidence.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have summarily dismissed the appeals without considering the evidence for the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on condoning the delay after examining the supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following the Supreme Court's directions regarding the pandemic period. The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, setting it aside.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was purely ad-hoc and not based on specific invoices or itemized disallowance. Given the increase in turnover, the corresponding increase in expenses was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order. The Assessing Officer had considered the issue and taken a view, and the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view for inadequate inquiry. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the relevant documents, including revenue records, and formed a reasonable opinion that the land was agricultural. The PCIT's revision was deemed impermissible on the same set of facts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground of limitation without properly considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The assessee also raised issues of natural justice and incorrect assessment under Section 144.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed before setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. The issue of 100% deduction was rejected as the law provided for 90% from AY 2003-04 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by disposing of the appeals ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper hearing. The issue of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was also found to be covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to Section 54 exemption for the entire amount incurred on acquiring the new house, including renovation and construction expenses, as the property was in a 'No Construction Zone' and the assessee had invested the full capital gains. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of additions made under Section 50C as the variation between sale consideration and stamp duty value was less than 1%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by disposing of the appeals ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper hearing. The issue of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was also found to be covered in favor of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the loan received from the related company was not a deemed dividend as it was a business transaction with a nil balance at year-end, following its own prior decision. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, upholding the disallowance of Rs. 32,213/- based on its prior year's order.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee's prayer for a fresh adjudication, decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical ailment of the director. However, due to the assessee's lack of seriousness and non-appearance, the appeal was decided ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of investment due to capital reduction in a wholly-owned subsidiary is a notional loss, not an actual loss. Therefore, it cannot be deducted while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should have passed a speaking order and granted the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make necessary compliances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh, meritorious consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the evidence relied upon to the assessees for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing all the materials.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the evidence relied upon to the assessees for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing all the materials.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid because the original assessment under Section 143(3) was cancelled by the CIT under Section 263, and there was no fresh tangible material to justify the reopening. The proviso to Section 147 was found inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the evidence relied upon to the assessees for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing all the materials.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the evidence relied upon to the assessees for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing all the materials.
The tribunal remitted issues regarding interest on unsecured loans and professional charges back to the AO for verification. It also remitted the depreciation issue on lifts for verification of functional aspects. The disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure was deleted, while the addition for advances from patients was confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the sufficient cause explained by the assessee, including the impact of the pandemic. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the purchases from the foreign supplier needed verification. It directed the AO to re-examine these purchases and then deal with subsequent adjustments based on their merits.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be general and vague, especially given the significant tax demand and the assessee's prior professional representation. The Tribunal was not convinced to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly exercised. It found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the issue, and the notice issued by the revisional authority clearly stated the reasons for the revision, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It then decided on the merits of the case, allowing some appeals and dismissing others based on the specific issues raised, particularly concerning the validity of assessments under Section 153A/153C and penalties under Section 271B.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that no such penalty can be levied if books of account were not maintained and penalty under Section 271A was already imposed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking on both the jurisdictional issue of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that no such penalty can be levied if books of account were not maintained and penalty under Section 271A was already imposed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It then addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding assessments under Section 153A/153C and the validity of penalties under Section 271B.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents where no penalty under 271B is leviable if penalty under 271A for not maintaining books of account is already levied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents where penalties under Section 271A were already levied for not maintaining books of account.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond 4 years was invalid as the assessee had disclosed all material facts. It also noted that the AO's action constituted a 'change of opinion' based on existing material, which is not permissible for reopening.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.