Loading ITAT cases…
418 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the lower authorities and did not produce the relevant ITAT order. To ensure justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the cited ITAT decision.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements formed the basis of the additions violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act due to the proviso to Section 12A(2). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not leviable as the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the source and manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order considered by the CIT in the impugned Section 263 order was passed pursuant to a previous Section 263 order that was set aside, the impugned order was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not leviable as the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the source and manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was not covered by any of the exceptions mentioned in the subsequent amendment to the Circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The case did not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the subsequent amendment to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements formed the basis of the additions violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses was not sustainable in law, as the Revenue failed to establish the existence of an international transaction. However, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order if the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which was under consideration before the Apex Court, is modified or reversed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses was not sustainable in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The disallowance under Section 37 was also not sustainable as it would amount to double addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer, with a direction to pass a fresh order if the Supreme Court's decision on similar matters differed.
The Tribunal held that payments received for the sale of software, where only a copyrighted product is transferred and not the copyright itself, do not constitute royalty under the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gain on export of services is part of operating income. It also directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies due to functional dissimilarity, brand value, and asset base differences.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the crucial issue regarding the proper service of notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's products were not 'plastics and articles thereof' as per the Thirteenth Schedule and that the unit was situated in a notified area. The Tribunal also confirmed the eligibility for carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own decision for a prior assessment year, where it was held that incurring establishment expenses indicates an intention to resume business even during a lull. Therefore, the expenses were allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the closing stock was valued at net realizable value, the GP decline was explained by verifiable factors, the unverifiable expenses were partially disallowed by CIT(A), and the unsecured loans were genuine financial arrangements with established creditors.
The tribunal noted a typographical mistake in the title of the order concerning the respondent's address. The corrected address is now provided, and the rest of the order remains unchanged.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the revenue authorities. It directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a full opportunity to be heard, considering the reasons for non-appearance due to illness.
The Tribunal held that profits from land sales held for over three years should be treated as capital gains, reversing the AO's finding of trading. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of agricultural income due to insufficient evidence and confirmed the reduced addition for low household withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the stamp valuation authority's rate on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void ab initio because the initial notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal, finding no interest from the assessee in pursuing the appeal and citing non-appearance and undelivered notices, decided to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal is in limine, meaning it's at the outset without going into the merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made due inquiries on the issues raised by the Pr. CIT. The Tribunal further relied on a High Court decision to hold that interest income earned on FDRs is eligible for deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not sustained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A and that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the details.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 147 was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, and the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was void due to the non-supply of reasons for reopening to the assessee. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked when the due date for filing the return of income for the relevant previous year had not expired before the date of search. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) invoking Explanation 5A was cancelled.
The Tribunal, citing ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, inferred the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. Since the addition on which the penalty was based was itself deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid on account of closure of a unit was a business expenditure incurred for commercial expediency and thus allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that a liability that had accrued and crystallized during the year was deductible even if a provision was not made in the books.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions for contesting cases below the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for allowing the claim after due verification. This was based on the undisputed fact that the Revenue had accepted similar income in preceding years and the concurrence of both parties to restore the issue.
The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was incorrect as the assessee had incurred the expenditure and made payments from its bank accounts, and the expenses were reflected in the P&L account. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search to disturb completed assessments.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had reproduced the assessee's ground challenging the ambiguity in the show cause notice but failed to provide any finding on it. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was completed ex-parte without proper consideration of the material on record. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's cash in hand and withdrawals. It also found that the share transaction investment was explained by preceding bank credits which were themselves explained by loans from other banks.
The Tribunal held that the AO had independently applied his mind to the available material and had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, thus the notice under Section 148 was valid. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to deem the assessment void ab initio to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54, prior to its amendment, meant more than one residential house. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption for all three purchased properties.
The Tribunal held that diamond jewellery is included in the definition of jewellery as per CBDT Instructions and cannot be treated separately from gold jewellery. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.