Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was liable for penalty for non-compliance with summons, levying penalty for each instance of default was not justified. Following a precedent, the penalty was restricted to the first default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was based on an agreement and had been allowed in previous years, and the AO's disallowance was ad hoc.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A issue to the AO for fresh verification due to contradictory findings on share investments. However, the disallowances for legal/professional charges and consultancy fees were upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence to establish their business purpose.
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 held that since the assessee did not maintain any books of account, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(C) was quashed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that losses from derivative trading could be set off against business income, but losses from the purchase and sale of shares were to be treated as speculative and could not be set off against non-speculative business income.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses due to lack of evidence and non-deduction of TDS. It also upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenses and partner's salary, citing insufficient evidence and the partner's medical condition, respectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, citing supporting judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it, violating Rule 46A. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity and abnormal profits. It also upheld the exclusion of telecommunication expenses from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of jurisdiction requires a formal order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Since the Section 127 order transferring the case to Bhiwani was passed after the penalty orders were issued by the Bikaner AO, the Bikaner AO had valid jurisdiction. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the second reassessment proceeding was invalid as it amounted to a change of opinion and was initiated after the expiry of the four-year period without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the second reassessment proceeding was invalid as it amounted to a change of opinion and was initiated after the expiry of the four-year period without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that payments for international leased circuits and connectivity charges were not Fee for Technical Services under the India-USA DTAA as no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the return of share application money was adequately explained by banking channels, and the inability to contact the company was not the assessee's fault. The sale of jewellery was supported by a donor's affidavit and the buyer's MD's production, thus the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contentions regarding the lack of clear proof of service of the Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after confronting the proof of service to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that payments for international leased circuits and connectivity charges were not Fee for Technical Services under the India-USA DTAA as no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities constituted 'business of construction' based on CBDT circulars and dictionary meanings. Therefore, the FBT should be computed at the lower rate.
The Tribunal held that payments for international leased circuits and connectivity charges were not Fee for Technical Services under the India-USA DTAA as no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the second reassessment proceeding was invalid as it amounted to a change of opinion and was initiated after the expiry of the four-year period without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a precedent, restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 20% of the total purchase amount. This means a portion of the addition was upheld, but not the full amount.