Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted for the motor car expenses and depreciation as full particulars were available and the vehicle was used for business. The Tribunal also held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc disallowances of expenses.
The Tribunal recalled its previous ex-parte order. However, upon re-hearing, it was found that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit stipulated by CBDT circular No. 03/2018, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that borrowed funds were not used for non-business advances, confirming the disallowance of interest expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of rent expenses due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence of rent payments and ownership of the property.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiries into the cash deposits and the assessee's business activities. The AO accepted the assessee's offer without proper investigation, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties, whose statements formed the basis of the addition, is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties, whose statements formed the basis of the addition, is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its previous order in the same assessee's case for the preceding assessment year. Therefore, the departmental appeal was found to have no merit.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee's husband failed to explain the source of a portion of the funds, the explanation for funds from the son was not fully substantiated, and the claim of substantial past savings from dairy work and livestock sales was not credible.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the case, placing the burden of proof on the assessee to explain credits. The assessee failed to provide necessary details, leading the AO to make additions. The Tribunal allowed a partial reduction in the commission income rate but confirmed the addition for unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when full particulars were provided and the disallowance was on an estimated basis. A mere claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that loans from relatives did not require collateral, unlike bank loans. It also noted that the interest rates paid to some related parties were close to the prevailing bank rates. Therefore, the issue of interest disallowance was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the date of self-assessment tax payment as the date of filing the appeal. The appeal was filed within the prescribed period, and once the defect of non-payment was removed, the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the assessee, which included providing education and sports coaching, fall within the ambit of charitable activities and are not trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not attracted, and the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was illegal and void ab initio because no notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the additions made and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method should compare prices of identical goods, not margins. The AO's method of using the ratio of finished goods to raw material was found to be an incorrect application of CUP, as it indirectly compared profits. The Tribunal also noted that the purchase from the AE was an isolated event due to specific circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to conduct an independent enquiry to establish the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue regarding GTD expenses. Furthermore, the CIT(E) violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard on the computation error. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. As the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the assessee must have shareholding in the lender company. Since the assessee firm did not hold any shares in M/s. Karan Technofab Ltd., the addition of deemed dividend was not justified.
The Tribunal held that for assessments that have not abated, additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search that has a nexus with the disallowance. In the absence of such material, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make the addition.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be computed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Avani Exports, which clarified the applicability of certain provisos and the treatment of exporters with turnover above and below Rs. 10 crores.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was silent on whether notices were served and that the assessee claimed non-receipt. Considering an identical issue was restored by a coordinate bench, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market price of the property. The assessee agreed to accept the DVO's valuation.
The Tribunal allowed the early hearing application. It held that since the Commissioner's Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the addition, had been quashed by a coordinate bench, the present appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues for subsequent assessment years were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court affirmed the assessee's registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the Tribunal also set aside the issue to the AO for fresh determination of exemption under Sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 14,14,000/- under Section 68 of the Act had already been deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Consequently, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 206AA of the Act does not override Section 90(2) of the Act. In cases of payments to non-residents, the beneficial provisions of the DTAA prevail over Section 206AA for determining the TDS rate.
The Tribunal held that Section 206AA of the Act does not override Section 90(2) of the Act. In cases of payments to non-residents, the beneficial provisions of the DTAA prevail over Section 206AA for determining the TDS rate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not debit the service tax amount to the profit and loss account nor claimed it as a deduction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue cannot be proceeded with. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the parties' right to revive them later.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, which allows for foreign tax credit without discrimination between federal and state taxes, should apply when it is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA. It also clarified that 'Resident but not Ordinarily Resident' individuals are covered under Section 91.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a facilitator or lorry booking agent arranging transportation, not a transporter engaged in a contract for carriage of goods. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194C were not applicable, and the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that while the lower authorities rejected the assessee's claim as an afterthought, substantial documentary evidence was provided to support the claim that the stock and cash belonged to the sister concern. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were unsustainable as they were passed without providing the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 263. The lack of proper notice vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were unsustainable as they were passed without providing the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 263. The lack of proper notice vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were unsustainable as they were passed without providing the assessees with a proper opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 263. The lack of proper notice vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the set off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of 8 years is allowable in light of the amended provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted by the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts. Consequently, the reassessment notice was quashed.
The Tribunal held that when the basis for the assessment (additions) is removed, the penalty levied on those additions must also fall. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the full benefit of Section 35(2AB) and that the provision for warranty was an allowable expenditure based on past history and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal, following a decision in a similar case of a sister concern, held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee is to be set off against the interest income earned on such security deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide an opportunity for the assessee to produce its directors and substantiate its case. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable when donations are credited to the income and expenditure account and offered as income by the trust. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the donations did not fall under the definition of 'anonymous donation' under Section 115BBC as the assessee had maintained records of donors' names and addresses.