Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 4 of 14
The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to get the fair market value assessed by the DVO, which cannot be denied on procedural grounds. The case was set aside to the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient reconciliation for sundry creditors, and the interest payment qualified for deduction under Section 43B in the year of payment.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was framed in haste without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) also failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, both the assessment and penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to permit additional grounds of appeal and to remand matters. The issue of AMP expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble Delhi High Court admitted a substantial question of law regarding the addition on which penalty was levied, the addition was debatable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income was subject to tax under the Thailand Revenue Code, and although an exemption was available under the Investment Promotion Act, the assessee was entitled to credit for the tax that would have been otherwise payable. Therefore, the claim for tax credit was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was aware of the assessee's PAN and the filed return under section 44AF, making it difficult to understand why the bank deposits could not be correlated with turnover. The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business had commenced in the previous year and that the increase in expenses was justified by business growth and operational needs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by both the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the purchase of agricultural land to be cogent and set aside the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not verify the assessee's contentions, the case should be remanded back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by following the earlier year's order in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence, as the assessee was unrepresented during assessment proceedings. To meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present the evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 directs the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income was subject to tax under the Thailand Revenue Code, and although an exemption was available under the Investment Promotion Act, the assessee was entitled to credit for the tax that would have been otherwise payable. Therefore, the claim for tax credit was allowed.
The Tribunal found no plausible reason for the Assessing Officer rejecting the books of accounts and noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the AO's project cost estimate lacked material support and the assessee's architect-based estimate was correct. The Tribunal also confirmed the allowability of certain overhead expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was framed in haste without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A) also failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, both the assessment and penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without providing the assessee with the incriminating material used by the AO and without properly verifying disputed facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and the estimation of income by the lower authorities. The deficiencies in the books and the reasonableness of the estimation were considered sufficient grounds for these actions.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular directs the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it, citing a CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular also directed withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below this limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, and this applies retrospectively. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A on self-assessment tax paid, as it falls within the expression 'refund of any amount'. The interest is to be computed from the date of payment up to the date of refund.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that rough notings in loose sheets have limited evidentiary value and cannot solely determine the commission rate. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission calculation.
The Tribunal noted that while CIT(A) should not typically set aside matters to the AO, in this case, a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had already restored similar issues for the same assessee and assessment year to the AO. Therefore, the departmental appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the issue of limitation under Section 201(3) was not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide whether the Assessing Officer's order was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.
The Tribunal held that loose sheet notings lack evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining commission. It directed the Assessing Officers to consider only transactions with outside parties and adopt a reasonable rate of 0.50% for profit/commission in such clandestine activities.