Loading ITAT cases…
586 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be sustained if the original reason for reopening the assessment does not survive. Since no addition was made on the issue of commodity exchange, the sustained addition of unexplained advances was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from complying with the notices, following its own prior decisions in similar cases. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from complying with the notices, following its own prior decisions in similar cases. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal should be dismissed based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which directs against filing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 Lac. No exceptions were applicable in this case.
The Tribunal held that certain companies like Zylog Systems, Persistent Systems, and Larsen & Toubro Infotech were not comparable to the assessee due to differences in business activities, product development, and extraordinary events. The appeals were decided based on these findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from complying with the notices, following its own prior decisions in similar cases. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that several companies proposed by the revenue (Infosys, Zylog Systems, Persistent Systems, and Larsen & Toubro Infotech) were not comparable to the assessee due to differences in business model, product development, or extraordinary events. The Tribunal thus excluded these companies from the comparable set.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as no statutory notice under section 274(1) was issued to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty. Furthermore, the AO failed to record the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders based on incorrect facts and without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS statements was substantial and not attributable to a reasonable cause. The contention that no revenue loss occurred due to timely deposit of TDS was not accepted as a mitigating factor.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that given the age of the children (16 and 17 years) and the financial status of the assessee, it was plausible for the children to have accumulated such amounts as gifts. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee before imposing the penalty, thus violating the mandatory opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer also failed to record the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account. The additional disallowance of Rs. 1,37,282/- was found to be unjustified as it exceeded the actual expenses claimed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, especially when the reseller does not add value to the product. High advertisement and marketing expenses do not affect the determination of ALP under RPM.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unverifiable purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on leave encashment disallowance and also restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the comparable company, M/s. Basiz Fund Services Private Limited, was functionally dissimilar to the assessee. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of car running expenses, following consistent past rulings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not based on incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question. The seized document, an Agreement to Sell, was already disclosed in the assessee's regular books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that once an appeal is withdrawn before the first appellate authority, the assessee cannot re-agitate the same issue before the Tribunal. The appeal was not entertained on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the comparable company, M/s. Basiz Fund Services Private Limited, was functionally dissimilar to the assessee. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of car running expenses, following consistent past rulings.
The Tribunal held that no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee before imposing the penalty, thus violating the mandatory opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer also failed to record the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest paid to a partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is a business expenditure and thus allowable. It also held that a difference in jewellery valuation solely due to rate fluctuations between wealth tax returns and the search date, without a difference in quantity, is not a valid basis for addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court indicated the issue was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the difference in ledger accounts due to debit notes accounted for in a subsequent year. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by accounting for the debit notes, thus reversing the corresponding liability.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds used for construction of the school building is allowable. However, professional charges paid for loan processing were disallowed as the assessee failed to provide evidence of their utilization for rental income-generating assets.
The Tribunal held that no statutory notice under Section 274(1) was issued to the assessee before imposing the penalty, thus violating the mandatory opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer also failed to record the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, especially when the reseller does not add value to the product. High advertisement and marketing expenses do not affect the determination of ALP under RPM.
The Tribunal held that the claims for gratuity and loss on sale of fixed assets were due to bonafide and inadvertent mistakes, not concealment of income. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that several companies proposed by the revenue (Infosys, Zylog Systems, Persistent Systems, and Larsen & Toubro Infotech) were not comparable to the assessee due to differences in business model, product development, or extraordinary events. The Tribunal thus excluded these companies from the comparable set.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unverifiable purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on leave encashment disallowance and also restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unjustified as the entire expenses had already been surrendered and disallowed. Reimbursement of expenses cannot be taxed separately if the original expenses were not allowed as deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the addition made in the quantum proceedings for the written-off amount was deleted in favour of the assessee, the penalty levied for the same addition cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest under Section 234B. It was held that for a non-resident assessee subject to withholding tax under Section 195, interest under Section 234B is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement was not in the nature of FTS as there was no service agreement and the payments related to the employment obligations of CIPL. It also held that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the payments were subject to withholding tax under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers with the AO and can consider claims not made in the original return, even if a revised return was not filed. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to verify the claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without sufficient material on record and that the authorities below are bound to follow the ITAT's order. The pendency of a departmental appeal before the High Court does not justify making an addition against the assessee.