Loading ITAT cases…
586 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and provide reasons for the decision, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable if the payee has included the income in their return and paid tax. The cash handling expenses were also allowed as they were incurred for business purposes and supported by vouchers.
The Tribunal held that making a claim that is not sustainable does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order was silent on how the satisfaction of concealment was arrived at, and the lower authorities did not establish the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were not sustainable as they failed to provide due opportunity and credit for deposited taxes. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the addition to income is based solely on an estimate, especially when the assessee's books were audited. The conduct of not producing documents, while deplored, does not automatically warrant penalty.
The Tribunal held that severe financial crisis faced by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay in depositing TDS. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to immunity from the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was unable to provide cogent reasons for determining the ALP at Nil and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the services received and their benefits. The Tribunal also found that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was not appropriate in this case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal, considering the history of adjournments and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed additions/disallowances was less than Rs. 10 lacs, falling within the ambit of Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown bonafideness by producing bills and offering to produce concerned persons. Since the Assessing Officer did not grant time to produce the persons and the bills were not proved false, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that severe financial crisis faced by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay in depositing TDS. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to immunity from the penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is determined on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee's books were audited. The CIT(A) had not independently examined the submissions regarding the availability of audited accounts.
The Tribunal held that seized cash should be allowed to be adjusted against the advance tax payable by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the decision in Kanishka Prints P. Ltd. for this purpose.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers under Section 251 of the Act by remitting the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The CIT(A) can only confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in bills were likely due to the transporter's database not being updated for the new unit, and the assessee's explanation was plausible. The Tribunal also found no additional advantage for the assessee in misrepresenting production and directed deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was unable to provide cogent reasons for determining the ALP at Nil and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the services received and their benefits. The Tribunal also found that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was not appropriate in this case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment, the appeal was not being prosecuted. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not specific, failing to clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity violates the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issue should be decided afresh by the TPO in line with previous years' orders. It also held that the royalty and technical fee payments were revenue expenditure and deleted the addition. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments, and Section 94(8) was found not applicable.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Since the assessee had disclosed all related party transactions and maintained separate accounts for loans and sales, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance was not justified as the advances were made out of surplus funds, following its own previous orders. For the Section 14A disallowance, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh calculation based on specific investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.
The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 153C and the incorrect application of Section 153B. The assessment year 2012-2013 should have been assessed under Section 153C, and the AO failed to follow the prescribed procedure.
The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 as the reopening was based on a change of opinion and not new material. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition by following earlier ITAT orders for similar assessment years. The department failed to provide any grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 153C and the incorrect application of Section 153B. The assessment year 2012-2013 should have been assessed under Section 153C, and the AO failed to follow the prescribed procedure.
The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.
The Tribunal held that the direction for special audit was illegal and invalid, as it was not in consonance with the statutory provisions and was issued to extend the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that several disallowances made by the AO were not justified, particularly those related to reimbursement of expenses and cost of goods purchased/imported, relying on previous ITAT orders and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's past GP rates and the nature of sales, which justified the declared profit.
The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been deleted by the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the revenue were covered by the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts, which the CIT(A) had followed. Therefore, the revenue's grounds of appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that several disallowances made by the AO were not justified, particularly those related to reimbursement of expenses and cost of goods purchased/imported, relying on previous ITAT orders and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bill discounting charges, bogus purchases, and rent. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of income reversal to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It found that the disallowance was made mechanically without proper satisfaction and that the penalty was not justified given the circumstances.
The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed furnished details of investment in new assets, contradicting the AO's observation. After considering a remand report, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 11(1A) as the investments made exceeded the sale consideration.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains/losses are operational in nature and that Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. is not a comparable company due to functional dissimilarity. The issue of risk adjustment was dismissed due to lack of quantification, while working capital adjustment was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.