Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that even without incriminating material for the assessment year, additions made in the original assessment must be repeated in the Section 153A assessment. Since the Section 14A disallowance was part of the original assessment, it was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act if no incriminating material is found during the search, and the original assessment has attained finality. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee can put forward claims for non-taxability of escaped income, including claiming deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, the assessee should be permitted to agitate the ground that renders the escaped income non-taxable under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets claimed as application of income, was inserted prospectively from April 1, 2015. Therefore, it did not apply to the assessment year 2010-11.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by the assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries and verified the expenses, creditors, and loans. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh material and the reasons recorded did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's actions were considered a change of opinion.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the 'injection molding machine' used in manufacturing plastic films qualifies for 30% depreciation. However, other assets like office equipment and vehicles do not fall under this category and should be depreciated at their respective rates.
The CIT(A) correctly held that the AO must record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and that certain expenses like legal, professional, and audit fees are not necessarily related to exempt income. The disallowance cannot exceed the total actual expenditure incurred.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have allowed the filing of additional evidence to verify the genuineness of the fresh capital. Since the evidence was not admitted, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case with evidence. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and provide a copy of the order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to interest payments where the assessee had made suo motu disallowances or deducted TDS. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to depreciation on UPS and barcode scanners, following High Court precedent. The issue of Section 80IB deduction was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following High Court judgments, the Tribunal found this to be a fatal flaw.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by both parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by the assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a different assessment year was decided in favor of the revenue, holding that the ECB interest was taxable in India. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234D of the Act, charging it only up to the date of the regular assessment, not the subsequent assessment order.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition after an investigation by revenue authorities found no understatement of consideration and confirmed the sale deed was registered in conformity with the collector's rate.
The Tribunal held that the AO admitted that no incriminating material was found during the search. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was held that in the absence of incriminating material, completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a suo motu revision of its income computation upon realizing the error, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that there was no finding on record regarding the service of notice on the assessee. Given that additions were made without an opportunity for the assessee to reply and additional evidence was refused, the Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the set-off of interest expenditure against interest income, finding a close nexus between them. The Section 14A disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was also considered in order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat expenditure on furniture and fixtures as revenue expenditure, considering it as current repairs. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition related to depreciation on the windmill, agreeing that expenses incurred to make the asset operational are part of its actual cost.
The tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, and a resolution was reached between the competent authorities, which was accepted by the assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was debatable, especially concerning shares held as stock-in-trade. Relying on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal found no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by the assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a remission or cessation of liability. Since the creditors were old and the balances were carried forward without write-off, and no remission or cessation was evident, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by the assessees. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the right to claim brought forward losses, once determined, cannot be taken away even if the return was not filed in time. The issue of adjusting brought forward business loss from current year's income requires a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiries and verified the expenses, creditors, and loans. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the mistakes in the accounts were bona fide and the surrenders were made because the time for filing revised returns had lapsed. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products.
The Tribunal held that the mistakes in the accounts were bona fide and the surrenders were made because the time for filing revised returns had lapsed. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of disallowance of provision for leave encashment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied on this ground did not survive and was liable to be deleted. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings later if warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by both parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the decision in PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala was not applicable as the assessee was not a banking institution. However, it allowed the Rs. 7,00,000/- payment as a business expenditure under Section 37(1), finding no evidence of penalty or violation of NSE rules.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had initiated a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the India-Finland DTAA, which resulted in a resolution accepted by both parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained gifts was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the quantum addition itself was not legally sustainable, the penalty imposed on it also cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the AO admitted that no incriminating material was found during the search. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was held that in the absence of incriminating material, completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act if no incriminating material is found during the search, and the original assessment has attained finality. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were already deleted and the department's appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the penalties were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were already deleted and the department's appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the penalties were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were already deleted and the department's appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the penalties were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalties were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the finding of non-compliance with TDS provisions was previously overturned. The appeal was dismissed following a prior order in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's assessment order also lacked the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's assessment order also lacked the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that issues related to Section 80HHC deductions are debatable and complex, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) inappropriate. The matter concerning Section 80IA deduction was restored to the AO pending a Supreme Court decision.
The CIT(A) allowed the set-off of the brought forward deficit, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no valid grounds to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's assessment order also lacked the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.