Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot survive when the quantum assessment has been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained share application money and low gross profit, finding no infirmity in the appellate authority's reasoning and evidence appreciation. The Tribunal also dismissed grounds related to disallowance of expenses and bad debts.
The tribunal held that the non-service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) and the failure to furnish reasons for reopening, despite a request, render the assessment order bad in law. The tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's precedent on the mandatory nature of section 143(2) notice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the procedure under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act should have been followed, not Section 147. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the evidence provided by the assessee and instead conducted an improper inquiry. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof, and the revenue failed to discharge the onus shifted to it to disprove the genuineness of the gifts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot survive when the quantum assessment has been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no reason to deviate from the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee was not involved in trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the exemption under Section 11(1) was rightly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained share application money and low gross profit, finding no infirmity in the appellate authority's reasoning and evidence appreciation. The Tribunal also dismissed grounds related to disallowance of expenses and bad debts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Delhi High Court's decision that if an expenditure is not claimed as a deduction, disallowance under Section 43B does not arise. However, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of figures.
The Tribunal held that unpaid purchase consideration should not be reduced from the cost of acquisition as the seller has a right to recover the amount. For the second plot, the Tribunal estimated the indexed cost of acquisition to avoid prolonged litigation, deviating from both the assessee's claim and the AO's calculation.
The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refunds received by the assessee pursuant to the industrial policy for the state of Jammu & Kashmir are capital receipts. This decision follows the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had sufficient evidence to support their respective contentions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim, which is not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Since the assessee had disclosed all facts and figures, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that pure reimbursements of expenses, without any markup, do not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) and are not taxable as income. However, income from introductory educational programs was confirmed as FTS.
The Tribunal held that transfer charges collected from outgoing members are not exempt from tax under the principle of mutuality. The outgoing member does not receive any benefit from the society's corpus after transferring their membership.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the construction was completed within the statutory period as evidenced by the completion certificate from the Noida authority. The absence of electricity and water connections did not necessarily render the house incomplete or unfit for occupation for the purpose of Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that Accounting Standard 19 (AS-19) is not applicable to lease agreements for land, and the rent equalization reserve created based on AS-19 for immovable property was correctly added back to book profits.
The Tribunal held that pure reimbursements of expenses, without any markup, do not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) and are not taxable as income. However, income from introductory educational programs was confirmed as FTS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that government approval was essential for income accrual and that hypothetical income cannot be taxed, following the real income theory.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refunds received by the assessee pursuant to the industrial policy for the state of Jammu & Kashmir are capital receipts. This decision follows the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal preferred by the Revenue was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT circular regarding the pecuniary limit. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases, considering invoices, bank statements, VAT returns, and payments made by account payee cheques. The AO had not made sufficient efforts to verify the supplier's details or the payments.
The Tribunal, observing the consistent absence of the assessee, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's non-cooperation and lack of respect shown to the Chair. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 35D applies to expenses incurred before business commencement or in connection with extension of an undertaking or setting up a new unit. Since these conditions were not met and market research expenses are typically for day-to-day operations to enhance sales, they cannot be amortized under Section 35D.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the functional comparability of Eclerx needed to be verified in light of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Rampgreen Solutions. Since the TPO had not considered this judgment, the matter was remanded back to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry creditors, finding that the transactions were supported by letters of credit and bank discounting. However, regarding the expenses, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the claims and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded by the AO were without application of mind to the material on record. Mere bank deposits do not automatically constitute escaped income without further inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had paid the employee's contributions before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to distinguish the facts from the precedents cited by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind. The simple remark 'Yes' was insufficient.