Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the AO framed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 and the CIT(A) sustained the addition without appreciating the facts correctly. The department had not rebutted the assessee's contention that the FDRs were made from the sale proceeds of property considered in the preceding assessment year 2008-09. However, relevant facts, such as the amount received from the sale proceeds in assessment year 2008-09, were not available on record. Citing the maxim 'audi alteram partem' (nobody should be condemned unheard), the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and not seek undue adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient opportunities to produce evidence before the lower authorities and that the case should not be remanded to allow the assessee a second chance to produce documents. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition on account of rent paid. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on account of unexplained trade creditors and low household expenses.
The Tribunal, following established precedents, decided to dismiss the appeal in limine as not admitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The order clarified that the matter could be recalled if the assessee provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the relationship between the assessee and the bank was not one of agency, and the amount retained by the bank was for banking services, not commission. Therefore, Section 194H was not attracted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the assessee's case in a cursory manner could not be upheld. It noted that the evidence provided by the assessee might require further elaboration and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the impugned amounts were advances. One advance was taxed in the subsequent year, another was refunded as services were not rendered, and service tax was paid to the government.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance, relying on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which was further affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not address the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued, and the Section 148 notice was served at a wrong address. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the double claim was due to a bonafide human error and not an intentional concealment. Relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in the unrecorded receipts should be added to the income, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s decision to apply an 8% profit rate to the deficit contract receipts was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee and its subsidiary were separate entities and the maintenance charges were legitimately earned by the subsidiary. The Tribunal found no evidence of a collusive agreement and upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,05,000/- made under Section 69B. The Tribunal observed that the property was purchased in Assessment Year 2008-09 for Rs. 40,90,000/-, with the source of funds explained to the AO. The sale deed was executed in Assessment Year 2009-10. The property was already rented out by the builder, Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd., to Vishal Retail Ltd. The sale consideration was agreed upon based on the rate of return from rentals, and this was a business asset for the builder. The Tribunal reiterated that Section 50C applies to the seller for calculating capital gains when the sale consideration is less than the stamp duty value. It does not apply to the purchaser. The AO failed to verify from the registry whether excess payment was made in the relevant assessment year and ignored the fact that the total consideration paid at the time of purchase was Rs. 40,90,000/-, which was also mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, the AO's action in making an addition under Section 69B was incorrect. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
The Tribunal observed that the AO's assessment order lacked reference to crucial evidence like statements of parties and lease deeds. The CIT(A) also failed to consider these aspects. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 153C was without jurisdiction if no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. It also found that the satisfaction required for issuing a notice under Section 153C was not properly recorded.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 153C was without jurisdiction if no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. It also found that the satisfaction required for issuing a notice under Section 153C was not properly recorded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA as a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition on account of sales returns, stating that the AO failed to discharge the onus to prove that the sales returns were not genuine.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in considering documents not furnished before the AO without giving the AO an opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, stating that prospective benefits from a merger cannot be taxed as income and that the fair market value cannot be substituted for the actual sale consideration in the absence of specific legal provisions. The Tribunal also quashed the assessment made under Section 153C, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
The Tribunal held that Form 26AS information alone cannot be the basis for making an addition. Independent inquiry is required to ascertain if income has actually accrued to the assessee as per their accounting method.
The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refund is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as it is attributable to the business of the co-operative society. Similarly, miscellaneous income derived from the society's activities was also held to be eligible for deduction. The disallowance of provident fund contributions was deleted based on a co-ordinate bench's decision concerning a recognized PF trust.
The Tribunal, following established precedents, decided to dismiss the appeal in limine as not admitted due to non-prosecution. The order clarified that the matter could be recalled if the assessee provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had produced various documents before the CIT(A) which were not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the deduction under Section 80IB, the Tribunal noted that this was a second round of appellate proceedings. The previous ITAT order had remanded the issue for determining the market value of transferred goods. The AO, in the subsequent assessment, determined the transfer price of gum base based on market research, which yielded prices ranging from Rs. 52/- to Rs. 96/- per kg. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's determination of rates for the four types of gum base lacked logic. Specifically, for 'Orion' and 'Lotto' gum base, the AO adopted the cost of production as the market price, which was not tenable in view of the decisions relied upon by the assessee. The AO also applied a rate of Rs. 95/- per kg for non-acidic gum base without providing a rationale. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had rightly held the AO's adopted rates as incorrect. As no other material was available to challenge the transfer price declared by the assessee, which was based on invoices from CAFOSA, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim. The issue of club entrance fees was not explicitly decided by the Tribunal in its final order, but the facts indicate the CIT(A) upheld a disallowance of Rs. 3 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was baseless and made on suspicion without material evidence. The First Appellate Authority had rightly deleted the addition, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine, holding that it was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal followed a precedent that CBDT Instruction No. 5/14 regarding monetary limits is applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address crucial issues regarding the provision of reasons for reopening and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to first decide the jurisdictional issue with a speaking order and then decide the merits if necessary.
The Tribunal, following the High Court's decision in Sony Ericsson, held that the determination of arm's length price for both AMP expenses and royalty payments could not be done at that stage. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantial justice, fresh evidence should be admitted, considering the assessee may have lacked proper legal advice. The case was restored to the AO for verification of the fresh evidence.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without affording sufficient opportunity. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the Revenue failed to prove that goods did not move. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh inquiry due to the assessee's failure to provide details.
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the Revenue failed to prove that goods did not move. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the AO for fresh inquiry due to the assessee's failure to provide details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal due to the uncured defects. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's arguments and had not provided a basis for the additions made by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend income. The dividend was considered incidental to the business of selling shares, and no specific expenditure was incurred for earning it.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 1 lac addition was rightly confirmed as the assessee had surrendered it during assessment. However, the Rs. 2 lac deposit and Rs. 12,000 household expenses addition were ordered for deletion.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea regarding the nexus between interest received and interest paid on PF had not been properly addressed on factual aspects. It was necessary to admit the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that appeals against intimations under Section 200A were not maintainable before the CIT(A) prior to July 1, 2012. It also ruled that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied through an intimation under Section 200A, but a separate order could be passed if the limitation period had not expired.