Loading ITAT cases…
649 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 1% as commission for accommodation entries was not justified. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides evidence and beneficiaries.
The Tribunal held that payment of bank guarantee commission to a nationalized bank does not attract TDS under Section 194H as there is no principal-agent relationship. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. as a valid comparable, finding that it satisfied all filters. It also ordered reconsideration of Infomile Technologies and Bells Software Ltd. as comparables, subject to further opportunity for the taxpayer. Furthermore, Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. were ordered to be excluded as comparables.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on material already on record and sought to correct an error in the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.
The Tribunal, noting agreement from both sides that the evidence proved the genuineness of the expenses, directed the deletion of the disallowance. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to move an application if it was found that the evidence was not available to the AO.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee's income at Rs. 2,00,000 for each of the four assessment years, as both parties agreed to this revised estimation.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee's request to treat the original return as a response to the section 148 notice renders the reassessment proceedings null and void. This is in line with established High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the loss claimed from M/s Cressanda Solution Ltd. was bogus as the company's trading was suspended before the transactions. However, the loss from M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the AO failed to strike off one of the twin charges (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and did not produce any evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings. Consequently, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable because it did not clearly specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty was levied. The notice for penalty proceedings was also found to be bad in law for not specifying the limb.
The Tribunal held that lease rent is taxable under Section 194I and interest under Section 201(1A) is chargeable for non-deduction of TDS, even if the assessee is not treated as being in default. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be in line with the Delhi High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not subject to TDS under Section 195. For the 'rate difference' expense, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of additional evidence produced before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issues against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal also expunged adverse remarks made by the CIT(A) against a Senior Departmental Representative.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee's income at Rs. 2,00,000 for each of the four assessment years, as both parties agreed to this revised estimation.
The Tribunal held that investments yielding no tax-free income should be excluded from the calculation for Section 14A disallowance. Since the investments in subsidiaries and debt-oriented mutual funds did not generate exempt income, their exclusion was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments in shares and land advances. Therefore, the interest-bearing funds were not diverted for non-business purposes, and the expenditure was incurred for commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that the appeal was time-barred due to the unexplained delay and the absence of a condonation application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the previous assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee, with the addition being deleted. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and delete the additions. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's explanation for non-appearance and the AO's favorable remand report.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to pending appeals as well.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment and the disallowance of AMP expenses were not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. Other grounds were either allowed for statistical purposes or remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. This violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that no addition could be made under Section 153A if no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment was pending. The addition made on a protective basis without such material was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the assessee's counsel was directed to withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the required documents, and the same officer had granted approval under section 10(23C)(v) in the subsequent year based on similar material. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee's income at Rs. 2,00,000 for each of the four assessment years, as both parties agreed to this revised estimation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order, failing to examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination and a speaking order.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee's income at Rs. 2,00,000 for each of the four assessment years, as both parties agreed to this revised estimation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order, failing to examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination and a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits with reasoned orders.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding CSR expenses, stating the assessee failed to demonstrate they were wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, it allowed the amortization of premium on investments, following a Gujarat High Court decision and CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of accrued interest on NPAs was not justified as recovery was doubtful. It also found no merit in the addition for income from house property due to an incorrect comparison by the AO. The deduction for HUDA interest was also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid without the Assessing Officer recording proper satisfaction. Additionally, a notice under Section 274 is bad in law if it doesn't specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid without the Assessing Officer recording proper satisfaction. Additionally, a notice under Section 274 is bad in law if it doesn't specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence without following proper procedure and without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Consequently, several issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that obtaining sanction from the Commissioner instead of the Joint Commissioner, as required by Section 151(2) for reopening beyond four years when the original assessment was under Section 143(1), renders the reopening invalid. Therefore, the assessment was rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.