Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case regarding share valuation and the nature of services for legal and professional fees. All issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee paid the self-assessment tax within six months of filing the return and produced the challan, the penalty levied under section 221(1) is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the remand report and the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation for AY 2007-08 as evidence of purchase and use was found. For AY 2008-09, depreciation was disallowed due to lack of renewal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition for unsecured loans for both years, finding sufficient evidence or accepting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution towards PF/ESI is remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, it is allowable as a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion and were therefore without jurisdiction, setting aside the assessment. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision on merits, finding that the assessee had commenced business activities.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case regarding share valuation and the nature of services for legal and professional fees. All issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the issue needed to be reconsidered by the CIT(E) in light of the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessee was directed to provide details of activities conducted in corporation schools free of cost.
The Tribunal held that losses from derivative transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange are deemed non-speculative as per the amendment to Section 43(5) and should be allowed to be set off against business income.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable when a business is acquired as a going concern for a lump sum consideration, and the excess payment over the net worth of assets and liabilities represents goodwill.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation for AY 2007-08 as evidence of purchase and use was found. For AY 2008-09, depreciation was disallowed due to lack of renewal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition for unsecured loans for both years, finding sufficient evidence or accepting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the share application money. For the issue of sundry creditors, the tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.
The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the share application money. For the issue of sundry creditors, the tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable on legal grounds as the show cause notice was defective and did not clearly state the charge. Furthermore, the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, and there was no evidence of fraud or wilful neglect.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by ESPN India for advertisement space were not 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for withholding tax on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by ESPN India for advertisement space were not 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Tribunal also noted that retrospective imposition of tax obligations was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by ESPN India for advertisement space were not 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-UK tax treaty. The Tribunal also noted that retrospective imposition of withholding tax obligations was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by ESPN India for advertisement space were not 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-UK tax treaty. The Tribunal found that the assessee was merely a reseller of advertisement space and did not acquire any right to use equipment or process.
The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the share application money. For the issue of sundry creditors, the tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the material gathered by the AO was not confronted to the assessee, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 142(3). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with all relied-upon material.
The Tribunal held that if the excess provision for excise duty was reversed, disallowing it again would amount to double taxation. For leave encashment, if payments were actually made, the disallowance should be reduced accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided reasons for non-appearance before lower authorities and sought to explain the source of cash deposits. Further verification was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in considering one remand report while two different views were expressed in the reports. The Tribunal agreed to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the share application money. For the issue of sundry creditors, the tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.