Loading ITAT cases…
649 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 16,16,065/-.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the AO had not pointed out specific instances where bills and vouchers were not produced or verified. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) correctly observed that the assessee could not be put to negative onus regarding AIR mismatches.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal after hearing parties and providing reasons, and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was found to be infirm for not deciding on merits and not providing a reasoned order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be infirm for not providing a reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits did not pertain to the relevant assessment year (2008-09). The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal found that individual payments of commission were below Rs. 2,500/-, the threshold for TDS under Section 194H. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the AO was obligated to consider the revised return and dispose of the rectification application. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to do so was not an improper setting aside of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT's instructions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the previous ITAT directions to obtain a remand report and instead restored the issue to the AO. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition for amounts received from other parties due to the assessee's failure to discharge the primary onus.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 16,16,065/-.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and without deciding on merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing him to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. This was done considering the assessee's claim of fraudulent misuse of his IEC code and pending complaints.
The Tribunal noted that the taxpayer failed to provide the working of net profit margins for internal comparables for inbound and outbound services. Consequently, the issue of benchmarking could not be decided. The case was remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to re-evaluate the international transactions using TNMM based on internal comparables provided by the taxpayer.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the commission income as it was an agreed addition. For the interest income, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm. The order of CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable because the show cause notices issued by the AO were bad in law as they did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal followed the judgments of the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without going into merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on software and intellectual property had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT. Regarding legal and professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete details to the AO, and thus no interference was called for.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision, directing verification of interest rates for TP adjustments and allowing no adjustment post-conversion of loan to share application money. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the issue of estimated gross profit on deemed sales requires reconsideration by the CIT(A) due to lack of detailed factual findings. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of project and construction expenses, finding them to be revenue in nature related to the assessee's business of developing commercial complexes. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, noting that advances had reduced and the assessee had sufficient own funds, with no nexus proven between borrowed funds and interest-free advances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be infirm for not deciding on merits and giving reasoned conclusions.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on software and intellectual property had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT. Regarding legal and professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete details to the AO, and thus no interference was called for.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's circulars which stipulated a monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, directed the exclusion of four comparables. The issue regarding the calculation of the assessee's PLI was remanded back to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after affording sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on conversion of shares, finding no error. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance of administrative expenses to the amount of exempt income, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without going into the merits. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasoned orders.
The Tribunal annulled the CIT(A)'s order as infructuous because the appeal had been filed electronically. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular was applicable to all pending appeals.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and provide a reasoned order, which is a procedural infirmity. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on unverifiable purchases to Rs. 1 lac, treating 1/10th of telephone and vehicle expenses as personal, and deleted the disallowance on travelling expenses. Festival expenses were allowed as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without merit consideration is infirm.