Loading ITAT cases…
340 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and the jurisdictional High Court's order in the assessee's own case, held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The addition made on this account was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was without jurisdiction. It found that the Assessing Officer had conducted an inquiry and was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the cash credits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposit to the Assessing Officer for verification of supporting bills, vouchers, and bank statements. Similarly, the issue of sundry creditors was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the payee and the services rendered. The evidence presented, including bills and an appointment letter, was found to be inconsistent and insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without adhering to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, specifically by not recording the admission in writing and not forwarding it to the Assessing Officer for rebuttal. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and the jurisdictional High Court's order in the assessee's own case, held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. The addition made on this account was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs, which were kept for furnishing bank guarantees, is inextricably linked to securing the contract and is thus business income. The interest should reduce the cost of work-in-progress, not be taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without adhering to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, specifically by not recording the admission in writing and not forwarding it to the Assessing Officer for rebuttal. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unexplained bank deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide supporting evidence. The disallowance of expenses was confirmed as the assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the ACIT was merely a 'yes' without any application of mind, making the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment under Section 151(2) was granted with a simple 'yes' and signature, which does not indicate application of mind. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand had interpreted Section 80IC in a specific manner, emphasizing the 'Ecotourism' aspect. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when there is a bonafide difference in interpretation of tax treaties and the assessee has disclosed all material facts. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's explanation regarding long-term capital gains was bonafide and not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated based on information from the Investigation Wing without the Assessing Officer applying his own mind or substantiating the information with tangible material. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the sale of standard software by the assessee is chargeable to tax as business income under Article 7 of the DTAA, not as royalty under Article 12. Issues related to TDS credit and grossing up of receipts were set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on factually incorrect figures and a 'change of opinion'. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment had already considered the financial accounts and the reassessment was initiated after four years without proving failure to make a full and true disclosure.
The Tribunal held that the sale of standard software by the assessee is chargeable to tax as business income under Article 7 of the DTAA, not as royalty under Article 12. Issues related to TDS credit and grossing up of receipts were set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals below the specified monetary limits.
The CIT(A) exceeded his powers by setting aside the assessment and restoring it to the AO, as Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not grant such power. The matter is to be decided on merits by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated beyond the prescribed period and constituted a 'change of opinion'. The Tribunal also found that the technical fees were rightly treated as revenue expenditure and the allocation of head office expenses for Section 80IB deduction was justified.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order, failing to address the issues in dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision.