Loading ITAT cases…
179 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that additions based on unsigned documents, loose sheets, and excel sheets without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was incorrectly invoked as no unexplained money, bullion, or valuable articles were found.
The Tribunal held that additions based on unsigned documents, loose sheets, and excel sheets without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was incorrectly invoked as no unexplained money, bullion, or valuable articles were found.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay due to the Karta's illness and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A). The specific details of the CIT(A)'s order and the tribunal's decision are not fully provided in the excerpt.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding TDS returns and found substance in the revenue's argument that the assessee failed to follow CBDT circulars in spirit. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were indeed loans and advances, not mere current account adjustments. The assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the cash transactions, and the argument regarding inadequate banking facilities was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were indeed loans and advances, not mere current account adjustments, and that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the cash transactions. The argument regarding inadequate banking facilities was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction towards provision for bad debts did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that additions based on unsigned documents, loose sheets, and excel sheets without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was incorrectly invoked as no unexplained money, bullion, or valuable articles were found.
The Tribunal held that the Department should have waited for the decision on the assessee's condonation petition filed before the CBDT. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the Department should have waited for the decision on the assessee's condonation petition filed before the CBDT before processing the return. The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received hearing notices. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reliance on a decision in his brother's case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reliance on a decision in his brother's case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reliance on a decision in his brother's case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction before making the additional disallowance under Section 14A. Regarding arbitrage losses, the Tribunal ruled that these are normal business transactions and the loss in one segment can be set off against profit in another, as they are two sides of the same coin.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the authorized representative's ill health. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the general training services provided by the Singapore entity were not taxable in India as FTS, as they did not involve the 'make available' clause of the DTAA and were not technical in nature. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the general training services provided by the Singapore entity were not taxable in India as FTS, as they did not involve the 'make available' clause of the DTAA and were not technical in nature. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was not justified.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal found that this issue had been restored to the AO for fresh examination in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination on similar lines, keeping all issues open. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Concerning the Transfer Pricing adjustment on Corporate Guarantee fee, the Tribunal noted that the impugned orders followed the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, with similar facts. The assessee's plea to compute the adjustment on the actual loans availed by the AE was not accepted, as the adjustment must be computed on the gross value of the corporate guarantee. This ground was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in both appeals, citing the principles of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in both appeals, citing the principles of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable in this case.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to await the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT and re-adjudicate the appeal.
The tribunal reiterated that interest under sections 234A to 234D is consequential and mandatory. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest in accordance with law, considering the income assessed under section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that no fees under Section 234E could be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following a Karnataka High Court decision. The AO was directed to revise the demand.