Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 3 of 5
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Department's appeal against the penalty deletion was also dismissed.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked specific findings for the assessment year under appeal. The CIT(A) failed to record findings of fact and relied on facts from a previous year without addressing the AO's findings for the current year.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for capital losses due to war is a capital receipt and not taxable as business income. It also allowed certain claims related to PF contributions based on timely deposit.
The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the sale value declared by the assessee for LTCG computation, allowed a portion of the cost of improvement, and remanded the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to the assessee to provide evidence.
The Tribunal held that MIPL is not a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee, relying on its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years. Consequently, no further profit is attributable to the Indian operations.
The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the sale value declared by the assessee for LTCG computation, allowed a portion of the cost of improvement, and remanded the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to the assessee to provide evidence.
The Tribunal directed that the appearance for the assessee in the previous order be corrected to 'Assessee by : None'. Additionally, the concluding line of the order was also rectified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly decided the issue of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and had also not decided the merits of the additions in a speaking manner. Therefore, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal directed a correction to the order to reflect that 'Shri Lalit Mohan, CA' appeared for the assessee, not 'None' as initially recorded. The last line of the order was also amended for clarity.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases from the three creditors were part of the total purchases accepted by the AO, and sales made from these purchases were also accepted, the additions under Section 68 were not justified. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including laboratory testing and consultancy, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not undertaken with the primary motive of profit. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground of limitation, following a co-ordinate bench decision. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal noted the assessee's arguments on substantiating services and benefits, and the DRP's upholding of the TPO's disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP should be restricted to Rs. 2,85,10,127/- instead of the original Rs. 13,50,86,400/-. The Tribunal directed the TPO/DRP to make this restriction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including laboratory testing and consultancy, were in furtherance of its charitable objects and not undertaken with the primary motive of profit. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening were based on incorrect facts (failure to file return) and the approval for reopening was mechanical. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that profits from the sale of agricultural land, exempt under Section 10, should be reduced from book profits under Section 115JB if credited to the profit and loss account. The CIT(A)'s direction to reduce such income was deemed correct and justified.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and consequently the assessment order. The reopening was found to be based on borrowed satisfaction as the AO failed to mention the source of information or its relevance to the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable as the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify which of the twin charges (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was being invoked, rendering the penalty bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the illness of the settler and managing trustee. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce all required documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the illness of the settler and managing trustee. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce all required documents.
The Tribunal dismissed additions related to differences in parties' accounts and diversion of income to family members, finding them to be sham transactions. However, it allowed deletion of additions related to closing stock valuation and interest on advances, and partly allowed disallowance on expenses.
The Tribunal is rectifying typographical errors in its previous order. The rest of the contents of the original order dated 04.09.2020 will remain unchanged.
The Tribunal held that in transfer pricing matters, judicial discipline requires following coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years, unless specific differences are shown or the orders are upset by higher forums. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation but also the Department's failure to produce assessment records, particularly proof of notice service. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that trading activities, specifically import for re-export, fall within the definition of 'services' as per the SEZ Act and Rules. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. It found that the AO had not applied his mind before issuing the notice under Section 148, as the alleged entry providers were already assessed to tax. Furthermore, the reopening was done after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. The reasoning is based on the established legal position, as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory. These judgments clearly state that a notice under Section 274 must specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings are initiated, whether it be for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The practice of issuing a printed form that mentions all grounds without striking off the inappropriate ones indicates a non-application of mind and offends the principles of natural justice, as the assessee is not clearly informed of the case they need to meet. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notices and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on depreciation as infructuous, and on unexplained investment and consultancy expenses, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on referral fees.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment lacked tangible material to infer that income had escaped assessment due to client code modifications. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of proper service of notices by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the deployment of funds in BARC was not an investment for earning profit but an application of income to fulfill the assessee's objectives and comply with government policy. Therefore, it did not violate Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity and brand value, dismissing the revenue's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments. It also affirmed the allowance of Section 10A deduction, stating that ITES includes call centers. Additionally, it allowed the deduction of cess, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO erred in making the upward adjustment for support services. Relying on a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found no merit in the adjustment and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existent company, despite the Assessing Officer's knowledge of the merger, renders the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 bad in law. Consequently, the assessment made based on such jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the deployment of funds in BARC was not an investment for earning profit but an application of income to fulfill the assessee's objectives and comply with government policy. Therefore, it did not violate Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity and brand value, dismissing the revenue's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments. It also affirmed the allowance of Section 10A deduction, stating that ITES includes call centers. Additionally, it allowed the deduction of cess, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.