Loading ITAT cases…
411 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal found a significant discrepancy in the investment figures used by the AO and the assessee. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for re-computation after verifying the actual investments.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was bonafide and inadvertent, not amounting to concealment of income. The penalty order was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA as the WEGs units were used for eligible business of electricity supply, and the sale of electricity had a direct nexus with the assessee's basic business. The denial of deduction by the authorities below was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio due to the non-compliance of recording a satisfaction note, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. Consequently, the assessments for both years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid unless there was a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the reasons for reopening were based on a change of opinion and no such failure was established, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio due to the non-compliance of recording a satisfaction note, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. Consequently, the assessments for both years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals before the Appellate Tribunal shall not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. The circular is applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid unless there was a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the reasons for reopening were based on a change of opinion and no such failure was established, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the revised returns were filed too late, after the assessment proceedings had commenced and the assessee was confronted with the issue. The withdrawal of the claim did not absolve the assessee from penalty as it was made after the 'critical stage'.
The Tribunal decided to remand several issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This included issues related to the taxation of interest on income tax refunds, adjustment of unabsorbed losses and depreciation, and the applicability of interest under Section 234B.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's alternative plea to consider only the peak credit in the bank account instead of the total deposits. The addition to income should be based on this peak credit.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, treated the appeal as un-admitted due to non-prosecution by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is to be examined at the assessment stage for exemption claims, not at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA. The DIT(E)'s role is to be satisfied that the objects are genuine and charitable.
The Tribunal held that withdrawing the claim after the assessment proceedings had commenced and the assessee was questioned was too late to absolve the assessee from penalty. The revised returns were not filed bona fide but to avoid penalty.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid unless there was a failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the reasons for reopening were based on a change of opinion and no such failure was established, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that merely deducting TDS on advance payments does not automatically make them income for the year of receipt, especially when accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis. The issue needs to be examined in light of services rendered, bills issued, and revenue recognition as per accounting standards.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio due to the non-compliance of recording a satisfaction note, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 24/2015. Consequently, the assessments for both years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular has retrospective effect and pending appeals below the specified limits may be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for the preceding year, which was based on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The surrender was considered a voluntary act to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was affirmed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the agreement to sell in its totality, particularly the significant sale consideration involved. It was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to illness. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to produce necessary evidence, after which a fresh assessment would be made.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if the assessee maintains books of accounts. A bank passbook cannot be considered as the assessee's books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for a previous assessment year. The disallowances on commission and service charges were restricted as per the CIT(A)'s directions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was arbitrary as the Assessing Officer did not provide any comparables. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that Section 40A(2)(b) is meant to check tax evasion and should not cause hardship in bona fide cases. Since the transaction was tax-neutral and the director paid tax at the maximum marginal rate, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect facts, as no property was sold by the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law and had to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal directed that appeals with tax effect below the limit should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal found the assessee's request for a fresh hearing to be genuine, as the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law and against principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be made as there was no amount payable by the assessee towards audit fee and professional charges as on the relevant date, relying on High Court and Tribunal Special Bench decisions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that the AO's addition was based on the premise of accommodation entries without sufficient evidence to the contrary. The assessee had provided assessment orders for the investing companies where nothing adverse was found.
The tribunal admitted the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, which was raised during the appellate proceedings. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of this claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted with good faith and due diligence. The decision to accept a partial addition was a prudent choice to avoid protracted litigation, and did not indicate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as the same issue was considered and accepted as revenue expenditure in the original assessment. The CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the cash deposits, thus not discharging the onus. However, it directed that only the peak credit in the bank accounts should be brought to tax, and dismissed the addition for household expenses.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in similar cases, allowed exemption in respect of arrears of gratuity and leave encashment under Section 10(10)(i) and Section 10(10AA)(i).
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions, allowed exemption in respect of arrears of gratuity and leave encashment under Section 10(10)(i) and 10(10AA)(i). Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) committed a procedural lapse by admitting additional evidence without confronting the Assessing Officer with it, as required by Rule 46A(3). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Based on this request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on bank overdraft, taken for business working capital, should not be disallowed merely because the assessee did not charge interest on amounts receivable from the sellers of the businesses. The disallowance was restricted to the interest on bank overdraft.
The tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to appear and produce documents, and cooperate with the assessment.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had mixed up the facts of the assessee with those of a sister concern, Rite Pac Industries Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the evidence showed the property belonged to the sister concern and the capital gains were offered to tax by that entity.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the issue had become infructuous. The entire addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment was deleted by the DRP.