Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2010-11 and restored both appeals to the file of the AO. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order after the assessee's death without this information being placed before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted relevant bills and vouchers before the Assessing Officer, which were not duly considered. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses was deemed unreasonable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted relevant bills and vouchers before the Assessing Officer, which were not duly considered. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses was deemed unreasonable.
The Tribunal held that TDS deducted and paid before the due date of filing the return is allowable. It also held that the enhanced partner's salary was in accordance with the partnership deed and thus allowable. Finally, it restricted the disallowance of telephone expenses based on the rule of consistency.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. The ITAT also noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's contention in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 39,42,270/- addition back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order, noting the assessee contested it was not an agreed addition. For the disallowance, the parties agreed to a 7.5% estimate.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables (Aptico Ltd, Global Procurement Consultants Ltd, HCCA Business Services Pvt Ltd, and TSR Darashaw Ltd) from the list used for benchmarking the international transactions, finding them functionally different from the assessee's marketing support services.
The Tribunal held that unsigned receipts, especially when contradicted by the sworn statements and affidavits of the alleged recipients, cannot be considered incriminating evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on these documents was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide supporting documents to substantiate the genuineness of the loan amounts. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot widen the scope of limited scrutiny without prior approval from the prescribed authorities. Since such approval was lacking, the addition made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny was quashed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to consider all documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT and the Delhi High Court had previously quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Therefore, the present appeal arising from the subsequent assessment order had become infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the claimed short-term capital gain as business income, directing the Assessing Officer to accept it as claimed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim set-off of losses against income determined under Section 115BBE until Assessment Year 2016-17, as the amendment to disallow set-off of losses was effective from AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty order, following the co-ordinate bench's decision and the Supreme Court's observation in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows. It was held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law if it does not specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding its investments, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified. However, a disallowance of 0.5% of the average investment yielding exempt income was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heirs on record and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding its investments in shares, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D was not justified. The disallowance of other expenses was restricted to 0.5% of the average investment yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding its investments, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified. However, a disallowance of 0.5% of the average investment yielding exempt income was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to present all facts, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide an effective opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify his order under Section 154. In the absence of any representation from the assessee to show the rectification order was bad in law, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was deemed to be validly served by speed post to the last known address, citing the Supreme Court's decision in C.C. Alavi Haji. The estimation of income at 10% on undisclosed turnover was also upheld as reasonable, considering potential tax evasion.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, considering the previous lack of representation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective due to the assessee's non-compliance and lack of seriousness. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they cured the defects and explained the delay.
The Tribunal decided the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 regarding low tax effect. The circular states that if the CIT(A) grants tax relief up to Rs 50 lakhs, the matter ends there and cannot be challenged before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred as no steps were taken by the assessee to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not sufficiently discuss how the funds were available to the assessee from his known sources. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents from the property broker were not mere projections but reflected actual transactions. The assessee's submissions were adequately dealt with, and there was no merit in the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was genuine as the lender's capacity was proved and the tax authorities' suspicion was not corroborated by material. It also held that the addition sustained from the sale of buffaloes was to be deleted as the ownership of buffaloes was not doubted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation before the CIT(A) and decided to follow a previous precedent. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and bringing Amit Saxena on record as the legal representative.
The Tribunal held that the scholarship expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's profession, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.36 crore was received in an earlier assessment year and thus Section 68 was not applicable. For the remaining ₹53 lakhs, the assessee had discharged its onus by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company, which had substantial funds and investments.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the details of substantial expansion and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without granting an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, by providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed for non-representation and the order was not in line with the statutory spirit. In the interest of substantial justice, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding its investments, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified. However, a disallowance of 0.5% of the average investment yielding exempt income was upheld.
The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal. In light of this request and the facts of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, allowing the assessee to produce further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 143(3) was void ab initio because the mandatory conditions of Section 153C were not satisfied. The satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded on 23.07.2010, making the assessment year 2010-2011 fall under the purview of Section 153C.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions before the CIT(A) were not properly presented due to his illiteracy and lack of legal advice. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the details of investments and dividend income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.