Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the cash deposits made during demonetization. The Tribunal directed the AO to carry out necessary verification as per the PCIT's directions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to verify documents for Section 54F deduction was not a 'setting aside' and upheld the allowance. For the trading loss, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for further verification, allowing the assessee one more opportunity. The addition for unexplained cash credit was also remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the gross receipts as per the impounded material and assessed the net income accordingly. The revision order by the PCIT was deemed to be without basis.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view based on the facts presented. The revisional authority failed to controvert the assessee's submissions that the losses were incurred on behalf of the HUF, making the revision unsustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory. The denial of foreign tax credit solely on the ground of belated filing of Form No. 67, when filed before the completion of assessment, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the disallowances as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return and were made to banks governed by the Banking Regulation Act, thus not requiring TDS deduction. The Tribunal also found that the documents were available before the AO during reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of difference in franchisee income and unexplained expenditure, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or supporting documents. The issue of difference in Form 26AS reconciliation was partly allowed for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to provide details of persons who deposited cash. If complete details including name, address, and PAN are provided, no addition should be made in the hands of the society.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the completion of assessment and no adverse consequences were prescribed for delay, the foreign tax credit should be allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that recent Supreme Court decisions would significantly impact the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the assessments back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation in light of these Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions was invalid because the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) was omitted from the Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions was invalid because the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) was omitted from the Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions under clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid because the provision was omitted. Following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal reasoned that the omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause, means the provision is to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the TPO's order and the consequential TP adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable in law. However, regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of disallowance made by the AO had been remitted back to the AO for factual determination. The Tribunal affirmed the action of the Tribunal in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All appeals were restored to the file of the AO for examination of allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions under clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid because the provision was omitted. Following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal reasoned that the omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause, means the provision is to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the TPO's order and the consequential TP adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable in law. However, regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of disallowance made by the AO had been remitted back to the AO for factual determination. The Tribunal affirmed the action of the Tribunal in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All appeals were restored to the file of the AO for examination of allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions under clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid because the provision was omitted. Following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal reasoned that the omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause, means the provision is to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the TPO's order and the consequential TP adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable in law. However, regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of disallowance made by the AO had been remitted back to the AO for factual determination. The Tribunal affirmed the action of the Tribunal in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All appeals were restored to the file of the AO for examination of allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions under clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid because the provision was omitted. Following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal reasoned that the omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause, means the provision is to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the TPO's order and the consequential TP adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable in law. However, regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of disallowance made by the AO had been remitted back to the AO for factual determination. The Tribunal affirmed the action of the Tribunal in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All appeals were restored to the file of the AO for examination of allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions under clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid because the provision was omitted. Following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd. and the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal reasoned that the omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause, means the provision is to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the TPO's order and the consequential TP adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable in law. However, regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of disallowance made by the AO had been remitted back to the AO for factual determination. The Tribunal affirmed the action of the Tribunal in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the claim of expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. All appeals were restored to the file of the AO for examination of allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions was invalid because the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) had been omitted. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions under Section 92BA(i) was invalid because the provision was omitted from the statute. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions was invalid because the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) had been omitted. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions was invalid because the relevant provision (Section 92BA(i)) was omitted from the Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO were unsustainable.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the sale consideration by obtaining information from the buyer. It also directed the AO to allow the correct indexed cost of acquisition and the brokerage expenses incurred by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the AO for re-examination, directing them to consider the assessee's financial statements and judicial precedents. The issue regarding disallowance under Section 35(2AB) was also set aside for the AO to re-examine eligibility under Section 35(1)(iv).
The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investments, it could be presumed that the investments were made from such interest-free funds. The addition made towards disallowance of interest was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment. However, it found that the AO erred in not referring the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value of the property as requested by the assessee under Section 50C(2). Therefore, the issue of capital gains computation was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly allowed exemption only for the 3rd floor as the assessee could not establish that the 4th floor was not an independent residential unit. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the cost of improvement by including certain disallowed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to verify the applicability of Section 50C for the sale consideration of property, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT rightly invoked his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have allowed the assessee to cross-examine the loan creditors before concluding penalty proceedings. The failure to do so, and the CIT(A)'s reasoning, meant the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies regarding whether the return was filed under normal provisions or Section 44AD. It decided to give the assessee another opportunity to clarify this and present complete expense details to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal found conflicting evidence regarding the construction of the residential property. Due to the contradictory facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that if investments in subsidiary companies are for strategic business purposes and commercial expediency, the interest paid on borrowed funds used for such investments cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not exercise revisional powers under Section 263 when an appeal against the original assessment order was already pending before the CIT(A). This was based on the doctrine of merger and the provisions of Explanation (1)(c) to Section 263.
The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings and there was no mala fide intention, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable. The delay was considered a venial technical breach.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of property via registered POA coupled with possession constitutes a 'deemed transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, which occurred in AY 2013-14. Therefore, capital gains should be taxed in AY 2013-14 and not AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish details of business receipts to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after considering these details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation as the notice was issued within the prescribed time. However, it found that the rejection of agricultural income claims was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow 50% of the disputed cash deposit as income from agricultural property.
The Tribunal held that the incentive received under MLFPS is a capital receipt, not taxable as income. It also held that the expenditure incurred on the construction of the building on leased land is revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income. Since the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the exempt income, the additional disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment as the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct proper inquiries into the source of significant cash deposits and payments. The revision order was confirmed, directing the AO to re-examine the issue.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of belated PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision. For the Section 80IA deduction, the tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) to await the CBDT's decision on the condonation of delay.