Loading ITAT cases…
484 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, non-speaking, and failed to consider the evidence. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the loss of equipment was a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue under Section 44BB. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Revenue's SLP.
The Tribunal held that TCS E-Serve Limited should be excluded from the list of comparables due to its high brand value and unique business circumstances, which vitiated the comparability. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was set aside. The addition of this adjustment to book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed both additions made by the lower authorities. It found that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor for the Rs. 10 lakh deposit and did not provide proper evidence for the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, rendering the assessments invalid. For AY 2010-11, it was held that the repair and overhauling receipts were not taxable as FTS in India, as the 'make available' clause of the India-USA DTAA was not satisfied and the assessee had no permanent establishment in India.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, rendering the assessments invalid. For AY 2010-11, it was held that the repair and overhauling receipts were not taxable as FTS in India, as the 'make available' clause of the India-USA DTAA was not satisfied and the assessee had no permanent establishment in India.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding significant expenses and profit fluctuations. The assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also refused to admit an affidavit from the assessee's Chartered Accountant regarding the mistaken advice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided ledger accounts, party confirmations, and paid most amounts via banking channels, and the books of account were audited without defects, the ad-hoc disallowances could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the net profit declared was better than preceding years and the books were not rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to render substantial justice.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not establish whether the hearing notices were served on the assessee. Therefore, dismissing the appeal for non-appearance was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payment was for independent scientific activity covered by Article 14 of the DTAA with Switzerland, not fees for technical services. Therefore, no tax was required to be deducted at source.
The Tribunal, inferring the assessee's lack of interest, decided to treat the appeal as un-admitted. The appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment for mere verification is not permissible and that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The Tribunal found a lack of crucial link between the information received and the belief of escaped income.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the quantum appeal had been remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of the quantum appeal's outcome.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that documents were not properly considered and an adequate opportunity was not given. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect in filing the appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that statutory expenses are allowable for a corporate entity even without business income. The AO did not properly consider the assessee's explanations and confront adverse material. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for adjudication. This was to allow the CIT(A) to consider the fresh evidence that was not filed before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte, non-speaking, and not in accordance with natural justice. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order for the share applicant (M/s. VIP Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd.) under sections 153C/153A did not draw any adverse inference regarding the investment in the assessee company. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeals were treated as un-admitted.
The Tribunal, noting the non-appearance and the returned notice, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeals were treated as un-admitted.