Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C/153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search that pertains to the assessment years in question. Since no such material was linked to the additions or the assessee's assessment years, the additions were beyond the scope of the sections.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void-ab-initio because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft. The reasons recorded for reassessment were also found to be contradictory and lacked proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void-ab-initio because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft. The reasons recorded for reassessment were also found to be contradictory and lacked proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that the dominant purpose of investment is irrelevant for Section 14A disallowance, and expenses must be apportioned. The disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that if a company is under liquidation, only the liquidator can file an appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the directors was not maintainable.
The Tribunal excluded certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity or significantly higher turnover. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim for deduction of education cess. The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the allocation of corporate expenses for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the main appeal had been allowed. Consequently, the appeal against the rectification order under Section 154 was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order under Section 263. The PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and improperly directed a de novo assessment without specific findings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the deductibility of royalty expenditure as revenue expenditure, following the ratio of a Supreme Court decision and its own prior rulings. Other grounds related to transfer pricing and expenses were also considered.
The Tribunal has consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was permitted because the matter in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was because the matter in issue had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal noted that the matter in issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to explain their case.
The tribunal noted that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the license fee paid for software usage was revenue expenditure, not capital, as it did not provide an enduring benefit. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the sale of standard software constitutes business income taxable under Article 7 of the DTAA, not royalty under Article 12. The appeal was allowed based on previous judgments.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee decided to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation. This was because the Assessing Officer proposed to make a variation prejudicial to the assessee, which necessitated a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1). Since no draft order was issued, the assessment order was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence and investor confirmations. The AO failed to bring on record any evidence to justify the addition of commission. Therefore, both additions were deleted.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had taken a contradictory stand by not following her own previous decision in a similar case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to charge tax at normal rates instead of the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a commercial and legal obligation to provide parking space, as evidenced by the building plan approvals and agreements with shop owners. Therefore, the cost of the land used for parking is a deductible business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had taken a contradictory stand by not following her own previous decision in a similar case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to charge tax at normal rates instead of the maximum marginal rate.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal because they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll fees is an intangible commercial right eligible for depreciation at 25% under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The provision for major maintenance expenses was also allowed as it was in accordance with settled principles of law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and bad in law due to the AO's non-application of mind to the information received and recording of incorrect reasons. Consequently, all additions were deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. The assessee was directed to not seek adjournments and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and the AO failed to provide independent findings. Furthermore, the valuation report used for addition was received after assessment completion and had been deemed inadmissible in the buyer's case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's request for admission of additional evidence. Considering the evidence was not available during the assessment, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after considering the additional evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the non-inclusion of income from a prior year was an inadvertent and bona fide error, especially since the assessee voluntarily offered it upon realizing the mistake. Additionally, the penalty notice was flawed as inappropriate words were not struck off, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is not taxable. Following a Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that such receipts are capital in nature and not income unless specifically brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll fees is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%. It also allowed the provision for major maintenance expenses as it was in accordance with settled legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio because the AO initiated them after four years based on a change of opinion and material already on record, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction as the assessee's registered office and business operations were in New Delhi. The assessment order passed without jurisdiction was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the AO. The AO had previously considered the issue of interest disallowance during rectification proceedings and accepted the assessee's reply, making the subsequent reopening after four years impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio because the AO initiated them after four years based on a change of opinion and material already on record, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the retracted statement of the seller, and the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine her. The Tribunal also found the statements of the assessee's husband and a society manager irrelevant to the specific transaction in question.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the issue is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarification. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarification. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law. The approval for reopening was mechanical, and the AO made additions on a basis different from the reasons for reopening. The notice under section 143(2) was also issued on the same day the return was filed in response to the section 148 notice, rendering it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarification. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.