Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue as the AO had considered the evidence and taken a possible view. The PCIT could not substitute his own view when the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue as the AO had considered the evidence and taken a possible view. The PCIT could not substitute his own view when the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue as the AO had considered the evidence and taken a possible view. The PCIT could not substitute his own view when the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is liable to pay income tax on the salary received from M/s. Engineers India Ltd. during the relevant period. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was an employee of M/s Engineers India Ltd. and was sent to Nigeria on assignment. The salary was paid by the Indian employer after deducting TDS and was credited to the assessee's NRE account maintained in India. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the salary income was received in India, making it taxable under section 5(2)(a) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence of paying income tax in Nigeria. The Tribunal found that the case laws relied upon by the assessee did not deal with section 5(2)(a) of the Act and were therefore not applicable. Accordingly, the order of the AO was upheld. The issue of the non-existent DTAA was implicitly addressed by focusing on the receipt of income in India under the Act.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue under Section 40(a)(i) based on the MFN clause and the DTAA. For Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue under Section 40(a)(i) based on the MFN clause in the DTAA. For Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits made by the assessee were comparable to its cash sales transactions. In the absence of evidence from the revenue that the assessee had backdated entries, it was concluded that there was a growth in business, and the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was allowed by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order considering this development.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's demise, granted another opportunity for hearing. The assessment is restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with the direction for the assessee to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not afford proper opportunity and passed a non-speaking order without discussing the addition of closing stock. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the loose sheets were not seized from the assessee's premises and the Assessing Officer lacked corroborative evidence and proper inquiry to make the additions. The assessee's cross objections regarding procedural issues were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI on or before the due date is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. Failure to do so results in disallowance.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities, considering the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- and substantiating their case.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not supported by any seized material or corroborative evidence. The statements relied upon by the AO did not admit to any cash payments, and the sale agreement itself did not mention cash payments.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the protective addition, finding no evidence of cash payment in the sale agreement or admissions in statements. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance as the assessee earned no exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals and should have adjudicated the earlier pending appeals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the appeals back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), holding that the cash deposits, both in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) and Non-SBN, were explained. The SBN deposits were covered by the opening cash balance, and the Non-SBN deposits were supported by bank certificates and comparable sales turnover during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that tax-free bonds held by a bank are stock-in-trade and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. The Tribunal also directed that no adjustment should be made under Section 115JB for this item.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals and should have adjudicated the earlier pending appeals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the appeals back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that an error in the Tax Audit Report does not automatically warrant disallowance. It also noted that the Rs. 0.08 Lacs adjustment appeared to be a double disallowance. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's inability to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that double taxation of the same income is not legally permissible. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the income belonged to the HUF.
The Tribunal held that the settlement of outgoing partners' capital accounts, which became a debt of the firm, and the subsequent borrowing to settle these accounts constituted loans taken for the purpose of business. Therefore, the interest paid on these borrowings is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenses. It found that the assessee failed to demonstrate how investments in subsidiary companies were for business expediency or improved its financial position.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. The Assessing Officer should verify the filed Form 10B and allow the exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses was an unascertained liability and not deductible. It also ruled that belated payments of employee contributions to PF & ESI are not eligible for deduction, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on this point.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an unascertained liability and thus not deductible. It also upheld the disallowance of belated payments of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between the written-back loans and the acquisition of fixed assets. Therefore, the surplus amount was not considered a capital receipt.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee's own funds are sufficient for investments, and the AO cannot establish a nexus with borrowed funds, interest disallowance is not warranted. Indirect expense disallowance should consider only exempt income-yielding investments.
The Tribunal held that the EPFO circular only exonerated the assessee from penal damages and did not extend the due date for payment. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the disallowance was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the issue of cost of improvement for the building was not examined. The cost of improvement for the building could not be claimed by joint owners in their individual capacity as the building belonged to the corporate entity.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the cost of improvement for the building, which was owned by a corporate entity and not claimable by joint owners individually. The non-application of Section 50C also made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.