Loading ITAT cases…
102 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's grounds of appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO, particularly concerning the lack of registration under Section 12A and the rejection of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a reassessment order under Section 147 cannot be passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution. The Tribunal noted that the appeal could be recalled if the assessee could satisfy the Bench for the non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the retracted statement, though an admission, needs corroboration. It also found that the Rs. 5 lacs cash receipt was not adequately explained by the assessee and upheld the addition on this amount.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty as the enhancement in income was made by the CIT(A). Following the Allahabad High Court's decision, the penalty proceedings should have been initiated by the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-compliance or ex parte. The CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent.
The Tribunal held that domestic transactions should be excluded when computing adjustments for international transactions. It also found factual inaccuracies in the TPO's calculation of the profit level indicator and directed the TPO to re-examine the segmental accounts. The benefit of the +/- 5% tolerance margin depends on the correct ALP computation.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-compliance or ex parte. The CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bona fide claim based on a reasonable interpretation of law, and the quantum addition itself was deleted by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the penalty did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income declared post-search, without substantiation and not declared in the original return, was rightly treated as income from other sources. For the Singapore property, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to prove she was not the owner.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income declared post-search, without substantiation and not declared in the original return, was rightly treated as income from other sources. For the Singapore property, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to prove she was not the owner.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income declared post-search, without substantiation and not declared in the original return, was rightly treated as income from other sources. For the Singapore property, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to prove she was not the owner.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-compliance or ex parte. The CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had no actual tax-exempt income. The Tribunal followed the precedent that actual receipt of exempt income is necessary for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement, even in reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the cash deposit and that the rental income was not genuine, thus confirming the disallowance of the deduction. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void ab initio and rightly quashed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee company, M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd., had amalgamated with M/s Hydel Constructions Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to a Delhi High Court order dated March 17, 2008. This fact was brought to the AO's notice. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. These decisions established that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a curable procedural irregularity under Section 292B. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd., which clarified that in cases of amalgamation, assessment must be made on the successor (amalgamated company) as per Section 170(2) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment framed on the non-existent company was invalid. Since the appeal was allowed on this ground, other issues were not decided.
The Tribunal held that commission payments made to non-resident agents are not taxable in India if the services are rendered outside India and there is no permanent establishment or business connection in India. Therefore, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for other assessment years.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's prayer and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's prayer and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on wages should be set aside, provided the assessee complies with the first proviso to Section 201 of the Act. The issue of increased current liabilities was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the existence of liabilities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not received the Rs. 10 lakhs as the cheque bounced and a suit was filed. Therefore, there was no real income accrued to the assessee for this amount.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal. The dismissal was with liberty for the assessee to move an appropriate application to correct defects.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the profits from the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the shares were contributed as capital by partners and held for investment purposes, with a significant holding period.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the profits from the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the shares were contributed as capital by partners and held for investment purposes, with a significant holding period.
The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly assumed jurisdiction under Section 143(3) as the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C based on the seized documents. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars but levied penalty for concealment of income, which is a different charge. Additionally, the penalty notice did not strike off one of the alternatives, making the penalty bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reopening of the assessment, finding no tangible material for reassessment and no failure by the assessee to disclose facts. It also confirmed the treatment of income from mutual fund redemptions and share sales as capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding unverified purchases and meeting expenses, finding the disallowances to be ad-hoc or unsubstantiated. However, the disallowance for cash payments under Section 40A(3) was upheld. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the primary additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's surrender was to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, and did not indicate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that while provisions for warranty expenses can be deductible if based on historical trends and scientific methodology, ad-hoc provisions are not allowable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the methodology used by the assessee.