Loading ITAT cases…
179 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service Pvt Ltd. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS are not justified. It also held that profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even if the return was filed late in response to a notice, as long as the claim was made in the return. It also held that interest earned from fixed deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as part of business activity.
The Tribunal held that jewellery found in the possession of independent assessee family members (wife and son) cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow telescopic benefit for jewellery purchased from the sale of silver articles.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the cash deposits were proven to be recoveries from debtors and the assessee was entitled to retract the statement given under stress. The CIT(A) had the power to examine the materials himself when the AO failed to do so.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS are not justified. It also held that profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of the Tax Audit Report by the due date is a technical breach, and if the report is filed before the assessment is completed, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that payments for software support charges to non-residents are not royalty and thus no TDS is required.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory one that extinguishes the substantive right to claim FTC. The denial of FTC due to belated filing of Form 67 was set aside.
The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments plausible regarding the reversal of excess provision and its impact on actual expenditure. However, it noted that the facts needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the advances were backed by sales invoices and VAT returns, and the sales turnover was accepted by the revenue, the creditworthiness of the parties was not an issue. The Tribunal found that the transactions were genuine and the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS are not justified. It also held that profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory one that extinguishes the substantive right to claim FTC. The denial of FTC due to belated filing of Form 67 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) was invalid as the mandatory requirement of issuing a show cause notice was not followed. The Tribunal also held that 'other income' not directly linked to the main business activity should not be considered for determining the turnover for concessional tax rates.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even if the return was filed late in response to a notice, as long as the claim was made in the return. It also held that interest earned from fixed deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as part of business activity.
The ITAT held that since the assessee was an exempted category dealer and the source of cash deposits was out of sales, the AO erred in making the addition solely on the ground that deposits were made after a 'reasonable period'. The tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that re-insurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) was invalid as the mandatory requirement of issuing a show cause notice was not followed. The Tribunal also held that 'other income' not directly linked to the main business activity should not be considered for determining the turnover for concessional tax rates.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the addition. Since the deposits were made within the period allowed by the RBI and the source was explained by the opening cash balance, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) even if the return was filed late in response to a notice, as long as the claim was made in the return. It also held that interest earned from fixed deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as part of business activity.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct TDS are not justified. It also held that profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the statements of the landowners, power agent, and the assessee regarding the distribution of sale proceeds. It concluded that the issue needed further examination to ascertain the real beneficiary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's petition for additional evidence, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's evidence, did not provide a remand report to the assessee, and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that for Section 194H to apply, an agency relationship must exist. In this case, the sales were on a principal-to-principal basis, with risk and rewards passing to the dealers at the point of sale. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS on the rebates.
The Tribunal held that the omission to tax the remaining amount of Rs. 24.77 Crores was an error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was justified, and the addition had to be made on a protective basis.
The Tribunal held that for Section 194H to apply, an agency relationship must exist. In this case, the sales were on a principal-to-principal basis, with risk and rewards passing to the dealers at the point of sale. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS on the rebates.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the issue of bad debts during the original assessment and made a conscious decision to disallow a part of it. Reopening the assessment on the same issue amounted to a review and a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the write-offs were notional entries to restate financial statements and did not represent real business losses or expenses. Therefore, the disallowance by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was not sustainable as the assessment was limited to house property income, and the PCIT did not address the AO's specific findings on that issue. The Tribunal quashed the revision order.
The Tribunal held that the customs duty paid was allowable in the current year as the liability crystallized during this year. For the deferred revenue expenditure, the Tribunal held it was allowable in full in the first year, but remanded the matter to the AO for verification of details.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for commission to foreign parties was not sustainable as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing invoices and payments were made through banking channels. The disallowance under Section 14A was also not sustained due to lack of evidence showing borrowed funds were used for investments or business expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the petition for additional evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one final opportunity. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply, decided to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present documentary evidence. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with supporting details.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was based on incorrect facts and pertained to a different assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the NFAC to adjudicate the assessee's appeal properly.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the penalty on merits due to the assessee's non-response. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the PCIT for reconsideration.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the issues on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (denovo).
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte on a technical ground for non-appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the decision of the CBDT on the assessee's condonation application before dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be reasonable. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(Exemptions).