Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance for repairs and maintenance of one premise to the AO for fresh consideration, based on a previous year's order. The disallowance for the other premise was confirmed as not pressed. The disallowance for depreciation was deleted, following a precedent from the previous year.
The addition of Rs. 50,000/- related to share transactions was deleted as it pertained to an earlier assessment year. The addition of Rs. 13.77 lac for cash deposits was upheld due to the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the source of funds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to request setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal noted that crucial documents supporting the business purpose of the advance were not placed before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the AO had failed to conduct an adequate inquiry as directed by the ITAT, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revision order by the CIT under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-calculate income using the preceding year's GP rate of 7.46% instead of 15%. The issue of Form 26AS differences was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance on car and telephone expenses at 1/10th was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus. The Tribunal noted that similar additions for earlier assessment years were deleted and upheld by the ITAT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the relevant material was before the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) had verified the genuineness of the written-off software development expenses, which were incurred for the assessee's business of supply chain management software development.
The CIT(A) incorrectly set aside the issue to the AO for verification after admitting fresh evidence, as this power is no longer available post-amendment. The CIT(A) should have confronted the evidence to the AO and obtained a remand report.
The Tribunal held that license fees paid after August 15, 1999, were revenue expenditure, and capital expenditure qualified for deduction under Section 35ABB. It also ruled that the lease rentals paid to IBM were correctly claimed by the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee was not in default for non-deduction of TDS on free airtime to distributors and roaming charges.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books under Section 145 and subsequent separate additions was not legally sustainable. It also found that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the transport company's proprietor.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not justified. Since the assessee was a later holder in a 'former or survivor' account and her husband was the former holder, any unexplained deposits should have been taxed in the hands of the former holder.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) because the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases, the seller denied the transaction, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for non-payment. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision stating that findings in assessment proceedings have probative value and the assessee failed to discharge the onus.
The Tribunal held that license fees paid after August 15, 1999, were revenue expenditure, and capital expenditure qualified for deduction under Section 35ABB. It also ruled that the lease rentals paid to IBM were correctly claimed by the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee was not in default for non-deduction of TDS on free airtime to distributors and roaming charges.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in contravention of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. The circular's provisions were applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the amounts claimed as discount and activation charges were indeed discounts offered on a principal-to-principal basis to customers and retailers, not commission paid to agents. Therefore, Section 194H of the IT Act was not applicable, and consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was wrongly made.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's factual and legal submissions regarding his status as a 'kachha arhatiya' and the applicability of presumptive taxation. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that no notice was received for the specific hearing date of 09.12.2015. The Tribunal accepted the submission that the adjournments were sought because the assessee's counsel was out of station. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order was to provide the assessee with the benefit of a hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also cautioned that this opportunity should not be abused, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and failure to cure defects, presuming a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. A reasoned speaking order addressing the points of determination and justifying the conclusion is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to establish that notices were served on the assessee and thus violated principles of natural justice. The ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without proper notice and opportunity. The order was also found to be in violation of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for not being a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of management service fees was incorrect as the Delhi High Court had ruled against taxing such payments as fees for technical services. Regarding Section 10A, the Tribunal directed that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover, and that interest income already excluded from business profits should not be reduced again.