Loading ITAT cases…
145 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessees had failed to substantiate the cost of improvement claims with documentary evidence. However, it allowed the Section 54 exemption, considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19, which covered the delay in property possession.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the manufacturing loss addition to 7.5% and deleting the addition for excess stock. It held that the survey statement alone has no evidentiary value and the AO ignored the cost of stones and other metals in stock valuation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is for failure to deduct TDS, not for belated remittance. Since the assessee had deducted the TDS, the penalty was deleted based on the Supreme Court's decision in US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, but dismissed appeals related to book profit computation, 'provision no longer required' write-off, carbon credit treatment, and Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's adoption of the stamp duty valuation as per Section 50C, noting that the CIT(A) had directed a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the reassessment jurisdiction as the sale transaction was not reflected in the original return.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's adoption of the stamp duty valuation as per Section 50C, noting that the CIT(A) had directed a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the reassessment jurisdiction as the sale transaction was not reflected in the original return.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the first appellate authority for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and directed a de-novo adjudication on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the impugned issues were covered in the assessee's favor by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A) had correctly followed them. Therefore, no interference was called for.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee on the issue of condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the delay and subsequently on merits if the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the first appellate authority for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard and substantiate its stand.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case. The impugned order correctly followed this precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend previous proceedings but, for natural justice, granted another hearing opportunity. The impugned orders were set aside for de-novo adjudication by the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the requisite details to substantiate its claim for deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend previous hearings, leading to the ex-parte order. However, to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend previous proceedings but, for natural justice, granted another hearing opportunity. The impugned orders were set aside for de-novo adjudication by the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's adoption of the stamp duty valuation as per Section 50C, noting that the CIT(A) had directed a reference to the DVO. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the reassessment jurisdiction as the sale transaction was not reflected in the original return.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was no independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny assessment regarding MTM gains. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on merits and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the issue de novo.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the loan and its purpose, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly exercised because the Assessing Officer failed to consider the survey findings, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The merits of the issues were not decided.
The Tribunal confirmed the PCIT's order, finding that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the claim for provision on standard assets. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to the lack of proper examination.
The Tribunal held that the revision under Section 263 was bad in law because an appeal on the same issues was pending before the CIT(A) at the time of revision. The Tribunal followed the precedents set by the Madras High Court and Allahabad High Court.
The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the issues during the original assessment and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Pr.CIT's opinion to revise the order was not based on credible information warranting a conversion from limited to complete scrutiny.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. Both the assessee's counsel and the DR agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issues, considered the documentary evidence and submissions provided by the assessee, and arrived at a plausible view. Therefore, the revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was high given the nature of the business and directed a disallowance of 20% of the total disallowance. For AY 2019-20, considering the business nature and accepted books of accounts, the Tribunal sustained a 10% disallowance on non-TDS expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the foreign exchange gains and simply accepted the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2018-19, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was high given the nature of the business and directed a disallowance of 20% of the total disallowance. For AY 2019-20, considering the business nature and accepted books of accounts, the Tribunal sustained a 10% disallowance on non-TDS expenses.
The Tribunal held that the late filing of the tax audit report constituted a venial technical breach without mala fide intention, especially since it was submitted before the completion of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Assessing Officer had considered the issue of sale consideration in light of Section 50C, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of travel expenses and service tax due to the assessee's failure to provide business connection evidence and proof of payment. However, for conveyance and other expenses, the Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance to account for potential personal use.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the foreign exchange gains and simply accepted the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal restored the issues of proportionate interest, commission, sales promotion, and travelling expenses to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, while confirming the disallowance of service tax penalty.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds related to Section 14A and closing stock, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. The notional foreign exchange loss was also deleted, following Supreme Court precedent. However, the addition on shortfall of sale consideration for shares was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the submissions made by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions to the extent of unexplained amounts while allowing relief where the assessee provided explanations. Some issues were remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions to the extent of unexplained amounts while allowing relief where the assessee provided explanations. Some issues were remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal refused to condone the inordinate delay as there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had subsequently amended the trust deed and obtained a new registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of the alleged commission income. Therefore, the lower authorities rightly treated the cash as unexplained money under Section 69A, attracting Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of the alleged commission income. Therefore, the lower authorities rightly treated the cash as unexplained money under Section 69A, attracting Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal dismissed the issue regarding the disallowance of belated ESI and PF contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services P.Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the taxability of capital gains on the sale of land, finding it did not qualify as agricultural land under Section 2(14)(iii)(b)(II) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned, following a binding precedent. For Section 40(a)(ia), it was held that the payments to brand owners were not royalty and the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, thus allowing the appeal on this ground. The selling and distribution expenses were also allowed as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and duly substantiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence of continuous service from 2009 to 2017, including salary declarations and Form 26AS. Therefore, the provident fund withdrawal was exempt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted new documentary evidence before it. Since these details were not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted proper inquiries into the source of the cash deposits despite the assessee providing some evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the capital gains by allowing indexation from the original acquisition date (2001) for both land and building. It also remitted issues regarding cost of improvement and incidental expenses back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions to the extent of unexplained amounts while allowing relief where the assessee provided explanations. Some issues were remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the revisional order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond two years from the end of the financial year of the original assessment. Furthermore, the revision was also barred by the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) and because the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. It allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of TDS disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the recipient had disclosed and paid tax on the income. The issue regarding reopening of assessment under Section 147 was dismissed as not raised before the CIT(A) in the second round.