Loading ITAT cases…
328 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits and by not passing a reasoned order. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the option to declare income based on the presumptive rate or a higher amount in the revised return for the relevant assessment year. The provision for assessing the higher of the two options was applicable only from AY 2011-12 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the TPO/AO for fresh determination on whether AMP expenditure constitutes an international transaction, in light of recent jurisdictional High Court judgments. If an international transaction is proven, it should be benchmarked after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payment to NDMC was not an un-ascertained liability and the notional income from the West Tower was not taxable as the sub-licensees were deemed owners. The addition on account of the West Tower was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the facts were similar to a previous assessment year where deposits were treated as trading receipts. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to follow the earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the facts were similar to a previous assessment year where deposits were treated as trading receipts. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to follow the earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the facts were similar to a previous assessment year where deposits were treated as trading receipts. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to follow the earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) did not properly deal with the records related to sales and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of ledger accounts and bills, with a direction to provide a hearing as per natural justice.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice does not clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. It also noted that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and mere disallowance is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per Board Circular No. 21/15. The assessee's cross objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO did not apply his independent mind but merely acted upon information received from the Investigation Wing. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the payment to NDMC was not an un-ascertained liability and the notional income from the West Tower was not taxable as the sub-licensees were deemed owners. The addition on account of the West Tower was deleted.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice does not clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. It also noted that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and mere disallowance is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the DRP did not grant any relief, but rather the TPO recalculated the adjustment based on further verification. Therefore, the department's appeal was considered without basis.
The Tribunal held that loaner/demo sets, used for facilitating sales and subject to wear and tear, should be treated as revenue expenditure or inventory, not capital assets. It also directed further verification for advertisement and promotional expenses.
The Tribunal found that the evidence submitted by the assessee was not sufficient to prove that the services were actually rendered by the AE. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the TPO/AO for verification of the evidence of service rendering.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee's revised computation and voluntary disallowance. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice does not clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. It also noted that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and mere disallowance is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that loaner/demo sets, used for facilitating sales and subject to wear and tear, should be treated as revenue expenditure or inventory, not capital assets. It also directed further verification for advertisement and promotional expenses.
The Tribunal held that the payment to NDMC was not an un-ascertained liability and the notional income from the West Tower was not taxable as the sub-licensees were deemed owners. The addition on account of the West Tower was deleted.
The Tribunal held that loaner/demo sets, used for facilitating sales and subject to wear and tear, should be treated as revenue expenditure or inventory, not capital assets. It also directed further verification for advertisement and promotional expenses.
The Tribunal held that actual use is not a prerequisite for claiming depreciation; assets kept ready for use are eligible. It also noted that the generator and sortex machine form part of the block of assets, making partial disallowance unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce cogent materials to demonstrate any expansion of the undertaking. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was found that expenses incurred on increasing share capital do not qualify for amortization under Section 35D, especially when not related to a public issue or expansion of industrial undertaking as specified in the section.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on an estimated basis, and therefore, there was no concealment of income by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty imposed was unjustified as the department cannot decide concealment when all records were revealed during assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing it earlier. The Tribunal found that the investments in mutual funds were explained by redemptions and FDR maturities, but a portion of cash deposits in the bank account remained unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by Apex Court decisions in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC on the face value of DEPB licenses.
The Tribunal held that the maturity amount was not taxable under Section 56(2)(iv) by following a previous similar decision concerning another partner of the same firm. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the chargeability of enhanced compensation and interest in the hands of the correct person after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the chargeability of enhanced compensation and interest in the hands of the correct person after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void ab initio due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the notice under Section 148, taking an adverse inference as the Revenue could not produce the assessment records. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as the assessee had discharged the initial onus and the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the transactions, especially concerning the business income and cash deposits. The admission of additional evidence was also deemed justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the onus to prove the Net Realizable Value (NRV) of demonstration equipment. However, it deemed it necessary to give the assessee an opportunity to produce documentary evidence before the AO.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and no objection was raised by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT appeared to have considered facts pertaining to another society and that there was a contradiction regarding the production of books of accounts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, held that the TPO's authority is to determine the arm's length price (ALP) and not to question the existence of services or their commercial prudence. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for an ALP assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeals by the Department were infructuous. This was because the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court had previously held that assessments made on a dissolved company are nullities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition on account of profit from land sale. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, confirming the addition on account of the sale of a plot as per the MOU.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was made ex-parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. To ensure substantial justice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the quantum addition itself had already been deleted by the ITAT. Therefore, the penalty levied on that addition had no basis.
The Tribunal restored the issues concerning disallowance of various expenses, including reimbursement of salary and consultancy charges, to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication. This was done because the original order lacked findings on crucial evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the damages were capital in nature as they were for loss of business source. The Tribunal also held that the interest component of the award, being sub judice and shown as a liability, could not be taxed in the current year.
The Tribunal dismissed one ground related to revised computation of income. It allowed depreciation on consultation/development fees as capital expenditure, following its prior decisions. Regarding Section 80IB(10), the Tribunal relied on High Court decisions and directed fresh verification of project completion dates.