Loading ITAT cases…
399 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued without the proper authority's approval, as required for reopening after four years. Additionally, the reopening was based solely on information from the Investigation Wing without the AO applying their own mind.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of inflated purchases back to the AO/TPO for fresh determination, following a previous ITAT order. For royalty and suppressed scrap sales, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that teaching is not a profession specified under Section 194J and that payments to teachers, made from the salary head with significant university control, fall under Section 192. It also confirmed the exemption of FRF/SRF payments under Section 10(16).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the AO did not apply his own mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing. Consequently, the reassessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that teaching is not a profession specified under Section 194J and that payments to teachers, made from the salary head with significant university control, fall under Section 192. It also confirmed the exemption of FRF/SRF payments under Section 10(16).
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts and conducted further inquiries. Therefore, the issue was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(Exemptions) due to the Managing Trustee's illness. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act is discretionary and rebuttable. Since the assessee consistently denied ownership of the documents and the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the transactions, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders in identical cases, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical illness. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. It deleted the addition on account of unexplained cash credit and remanded the issue of insurance claim written off back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's approach of aggregating closely linked transactions was permissible, it failed to provide sufficient evidence. The TPO's rejection of aggregation was also flawed without proper justification. Therefore, the issue was remanded for re-computation.
The Tribunal, following previous ITAT Jaipur Bench decisions, held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to 30% of the total disallowance, considering the amended provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee had provided evidence of loan repayment. Three creditors confirmed the repayment, and the absence of two others was due to a medical emergency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as it was found to be running for profit, evidenced by increasing profits, asset creation, and investment in FDRs. The trust was also identified as a family trust.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of a substantial portion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence and found that cash withdrawals could be considered as a source for cash deposits, leading to a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issue needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer/TPO to ascertain the correct functional profile of the assessee. It also ruled that the deduction under Section 10A is allowable before setting off brought forward losses, following a Supreme Court decision.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication. They clarified that the appeal could be recalled if the assessee provides satisfactory reasons for their absence.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires reconsideration by the CIT(A) in light of High Court judgments on the retrospective effect of the amendment. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion unsustainable as it was based solely on an affidavit without proper verification or calling for a remand report, thus restoring the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, read with Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed and pending appeals should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the income was indeed fees for technical services and not salary. Key factors included the nature of services as per MOU, tax deduction by SAL, assessee's US tax filings, and the assessee's limited stay in India and lack of employee benefits.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires reconsideration by the CIT(A) in light of High Court judgments on the retrospective effect of the amendment. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion unsustainable as it was based solely on an affidavit without proper verification or calling for a remand report, thus restoring the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the Delhi High Court's decision which set aside the rejection of the assessee's application for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) and restored it for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly verified the creditworthiness of loan creditors or the authenticity of purchase vouchers. Therefore, both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that 'brands' are covered under 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' as per Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal also found that the chemical recovery plant was indeed put to use during the relevant year, based on documentary evidence verified by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) at nil was incorrect and restored the issue to the TPO for fresh determination. The Tribunal allowed the claim for loss on sale of repossessed assets and depreciation on computer peripherals, following previous rulings. The sales promotion expenses issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the loss incurred by the assessee was due to damages for breach of contract and not a speculative transaction. The payment was made to settle damages consequent upon the breach, which is an allowable business loss.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. The Assessing Officer failed to record his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, rendering the penalty invalid. The issues were also considered debatable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without properly verifying the source of the investment and the creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of funds. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been decided in their favor in previous years and the benefit was already secured in a succeeding year. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that once TDS is deducted and paid to the government, credit should be given to the assessee, even if the advance is not income in that year, to avoid complications. The assessee's case was covered by a previous ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that inter-company receivables arising from the provision of services constitute a separate international transaction under Section 92B of the Act. It also found that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was premature and dismissed the ground related to interest under Section 234D due to lack of arguments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted additions under Section 68 without the assessee discharging the initial onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Therefore, the issue of cash credits was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.