Loading ITAT cases…
185 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a fresh condonation petition with an affidavit before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to consider the petition liberally and pass an order after hearing the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had already verified and allowed the expenses, supported by a previous year's CIT(A) order. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 jurisdiction was incorrect.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock was part of the assessee's regular business activity and should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment. Consequently, the addition made under Section 69B and the application of Section 115BBE were set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from furnishing details to the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of provision for warranty expenses. The issue of pooja expenses was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification. The petition for admission of additional grounds was rejected as it was considered a factual issue, not a legal one.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal held that royalty payments were for the right to use trade names and management services, not for acquisition of any capital asset. The payments were based on sales turnover and lapsed upon termination of the agreement.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was based on the pending consideration by government authorities regarding exemption for co-operative societies from Section 194N.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the significant delay did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. The assessee's explanation was considered vague and unreasonable, especially given her prior engagement with the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report was due to a reasonable cause, as the completion of the audit was dependent on the Cooperative Audit Department. Since the audit report was filed before the completion of the assessment, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets and sworn statements cannot be considered 'assets' as per the definition in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso of Section 153A(1). Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 153A were not met, and the notice was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets and sworn statements cannot be considered 'assets' as per the definition in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso of Section 153A(1). Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 153A were not met, and the notice was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance was not justified as the assessee had sufficient own funds and the AO failed to establish a nexus with borrowed funds. Regarding sponsorship expenses, the Tribunal found that the payments were made as per an agreement for business promotion and the AO could not question the commercial wisdom of the assessee.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order, deeming it not a speaking order and restoring the assessment to the AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claim, adhering to the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that non-compete fees and related expenditures are capital in nature but entitled the assessee to depreciation. The issue of provision for litigation and sales tax was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its subsidiary was not an international transaction for which an adjustment could be made. Regarding expenses relatable to exempt income, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the availability of sufficient own funds for investments and to consider only dividend-yielding investments for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has registration under Section 12AA, it must comply with mandatory filing requirements. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication after considering the condonation petitions filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets and sworn statements cannot be considered 'assets' as per the definition in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso of Section 153A(1). Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 153A were not met, and the notice was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if there is no exempt income. If the disallowance exceeds exempt income, it should be restricted to the exempt income. The amendment by Finance Act, 2022 is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects and activities clearly fall under the 'General Public Utility' category and need to be examined in light of the amended provisions of Section 2(15). The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the applicability of the principles of mutuality.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was a purely legal issue concerning the validity of the assessment, and the necessary facts were available on record. The Tribunal held that the DRP directions were uploaded to the ITBA portal and through common functionality for NeFAC, Delhi, on 31.01.2022. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention that the date of receipt by the AO should be considered later, stating that the upload date of 31.01.2022 should be considered the date of receipt. Consequently, the final assessment order should have been passed on or before 28.02.2022. Since the order was passed on 22.03.2022, it was found to be barred by limitation by 22 days and therefore void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order. As the primary issue of limitation was decided in favour of the assessee, the merits of the case were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The appeal of the assessee was allowed solely on the ground of limitation.
The Tribunal, while hearing the Revenue's appeal, noted that the issue of corporate guarantee adjustment was squarely covered by the Bombay High Court decision in Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. However, the Tribunal observed that the Bombay High Court had assessed the value of the transaction at 0.5%, not 1% as done by the TPO. The Tribunal also referred to the Madras High Court decision in PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd., which explained the distinction between bank guarantees and corporate guarantees. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the adjustment was not sustainable in light of these High Court decisions. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue and make an adjustment at 0.5% of the value of the corporate guarantee, aligning with the Bombay High Court's finding. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was partly allowed. The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's appeal concerning disallowance under Section 14A, remitting one issue to the AO for verification regarding sufficient own funds and directing the AO to consider only dividend-yielding investments for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance was not justified as the assessee had sufficient own funds and the AO failed to establish a nexus with borrowed funds. Regarding sponsorship expenses, the Tribunal found that the payments were made as per an agreement for business promotion and the AO could not question the commercial wisdom of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.