Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence and remitted the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for a fresh determination. The disallowance of interest on late TDS deposit was upheld based on precedent.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C as no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search, and the satisfaction note was not properly recorded. Furthermore, the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentation for the share applicants.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bangaluru Club vs. CIT. It was held that the principle of mutuality does not extend to interest earned on FDRs/savings accounts and rental income, making them taxable.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on the statements of third parties, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, is unsustainable. The assessee had discharged the burden of proof by providing supporting documents for the purchases, which were also reflected in their sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an employee holding a civil post under a State, thus attracting Section 10(10)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity received by the assessee was exempt from tax.
The Tribunal, citing precedents and the assessee's consistent non-appearance, held that the appeal was not being prosecuted. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.
The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee had any other source of income to explain the amount and did not prove the verification of the advance giver was false. The CIT(A) also noted factual inaccuracies in the AO's assessment regarding the sale deed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of facts regarding exempt income. If no exempt income was earned, the penalty was to be quashed based on the cited judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in disallowing proportionate expenses when the entire property, including the constructed structure, was transferred to the purchaser. The disallowance was made on a hyper-technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning, violating principles of natural justice. The order failed to address the assessee's arguments and did not provide an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution is not permitted in law. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the preceding assessment year was restored to the AO. Following that precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal was satisfied with the assessee's reasons for non-participation in the lower proceedings and decided to grant one more opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the company was not engaged in the money lending business, and the loan advanced to the assessee was indeed deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) as accumulated profits were available. The argument of prior repayment was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that in terms of the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned orders. The CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 10A deduction. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07, which held that the assessee's activities of data processing and customization qualified for the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional issue was not discussed by the lower authorities as it was not raised by the assessee. Considering the importance of the jurisdictional issue and the lack of factual adjudication, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C as no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search, and the satisfaction note was not properly recorded. Furthermore, the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentation for the share applicants.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) in its original return. Therefore, the claim should be examined on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account and the estimation of profit at 4% due to lack of verifiable expenses. However, it deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) as the 4% net profit rate was considered to cover all expenses.
The Tribunal held that the increase in salary was justified due to the shift from trading to manufacturing. It also found the fashion designer fees to be reasonable given the nature of the business and the designer's other income, which was not disputed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft. Consequently, other grounds challenging the additions became academic.
The Tribunal found that the facts were not conclusively decided and that crucial evidence was needed. It directed the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the assessee to present further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C as no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search, and the satisfaction note was not properly recorded. Furthermore, the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentation for the share applicants.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous cases decided in favor of the assessee. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim for leave encashment exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that AS-7 is not applicable to real estate developers and that the assessee's consistently followed project completion method should be upheld.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C, similar to Section 153A, require incriminating material to interfere with completed assessments. Since no such material was found, the additions made were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the provision for gratuity was not claimed as a deduction by the assessee and thus the AO's addition was incorrect. Regarding the WPC charges and other payments to DOT, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence not produced before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 32,40,000 was not justified and directed its deletion. The Tribunal found that the property was indeed sold for Rs. 92.03 lac, as evidenced by the agreement to sell and a receipt signed by the buyer, Shri Kanwar Singh, which clearly mentioned a rate of Rs. 19 lac per acre. The assessee's bank statement corroborated the receipt of Rs. 33.50 lac in cash, deposited on the same dates as cheque deposits. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to enforce the attendance of the buyer, Shri Kanwar Singh, when requested by the assessee, despite it being incumbent upon the AO to verify the assessee's claim. The Tribunal also observed that the AO did not dispute the nature of the asset as agricultural land and did not compute any capital gains, treating the amount as unexplained income. Regarding the Rs. 75,000 claimed as agricultural income, no arguments were advanced by the assessee, and thus this addition was sustained. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee was incapacitated to produce the creditors due to the short time allowed by the AO and prevailing circumstances. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked consideration of crucial factors like whether the assessee paid interest to partners on their capital accounts and the business expediency of advancing loans to partners. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.