Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to non-application of mind by the authorities and incorrect information. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was also deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of natural justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Tribunal found that Section 251 of the Act does not confer such a power on the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the lease agreement was for a composite letting of building and equipment, attracting Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the income should be treated under 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the reopening of assessment. For AY 2010-11, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2007-08, the assessee's appeal was allowed as the capital gains were already taxed in AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal held that payments made by an advertising agency to a media company for booking or procuring advertisements are not subject to TDS under Section 194C. The PCIT's order was quashed as the reasons did not hold water.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the reopening of assessment. For AY 2010-11, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2007-08, the assessee's appeal was allowed as the capital gains were already taxed in AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the reopening of assessment. For AY 2010-11, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2007-08, the assessee's appeal was allowed as the capital gains were already taxed in AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the principle of consistency. It noted that similar rental income from steel units and quarters had been accepted as 'income from house property' in earlier assessment years for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India, where the agents have no permanent establishment in India, does not attract TDS under Section 195. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for commission to an Indian party and interest on investment, finding no merit in the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as it is engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. The Tribunal found that the assessee's operations commenced after April 1, 2001, fulfilling a key condition.
The Tribunal noted that the earlier order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 had been set aside by the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the assessment order passed in compliance with the PCIT's direction was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year, which had allowed comparability adjustments for startup costs and underutilization of capacity. The tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned addition made by the TPO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw their appeal and dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue's appeal was considered infructuous in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's submissions regarding the property's construction and the timing of the valuation report. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal held that extrapolating findings from two flats to all sales over three years without specific material was unjustified. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition related to business income. However, the Tribunal modified the addition for unexplained cash deposits, restricting it to Rs. 1,50,000 on an estimated basis, considering the assessee's submissions on opening balance, gifts, and prior withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the addition of interest income could not be sustained due to the rule of consistency. The Revenue had accepted the assessee's position in subsequent assessment years, including when the entire interest was offered to tax in the year of redemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution without deciding the merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on the substantive issue.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed by the Director of the company, not the appointed Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP, acting under the instructions of the Committee of Creditors (COC), is the authorized party to file such appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were bad-in-law and barred by limitation. The amendment to Section 153C by the Finance Act, 2017, which harmonizes the block period for searched and other persons, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the current case.
The Tribunal held that the conversion rate for capital gains needed verification and remanded the issue to the AO. It also directed the AO to grant full credit for TDS and re-examine the levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution without deciding the merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on the substantive issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution without deciding the merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on the substantive issue.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities should have accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method, consistent with prior assessment years. The transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO/DRP was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed that transfer pricing adjustments should be proportionate to controlled transactions and allowed the issue of provision for doubtful debts to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Penalty and interest grounds were dismissed as premature or consequential.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the directors of a company under liquidation are not maintainable. The appeals should have been filed by the insolvency resolution professional.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the directors of a company under liquidation are not maintainable. The appeals should have been filed by the insolvency resolution professional.
The Tribunal held that since the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was later annulled by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty levied on that enhancement also does not survive. Therefore, the penalty order is not sustainable.
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, with a caveat for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash on hand from previous years, as evidenced by balance sheets, which explained the cash deposits. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary, thus the additions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance invoking Section 14A was not applicable as no exempt income was earned. It also allowed the set-off of interest earned against interest paid, restricting the addition to Rs. 7,14,646/-.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of undervaluation of property sold to the son was justified as it was grossly undervalued compared to another transaction in the same property. However, the addition for the forfeited amount was deleted as it was conditional on the assessee fulfilling certain obligations which she could not, and the amount was forfeited as per the sale deed.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium granted by the NCLT, no proceedings could be carried forward against the company. The appeal filed by the Revenue was not in accordance with the Code as it was not filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the directors of a company under liquidation are not maintainable. The appeals should have been filed by the insolvency resolution professional.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the BBMB Project should be taxed at 10% of the receipts for consistency with prior and subsequent years. It also directed the AO to tax royalty and fees for technical services as per the applicable DTAA at 10% and deleted interest levied under Section 234B.
The Tribunal held that the interest rate charged by the assessee was higher than the prevailing interest rates in Germany. Relying on a Delhi High Court decision, it ruled that no adjustment should be made for capital risk and that comparable transactions of foreign currency loans by unrelated parties should be considered.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate its claims, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that recruitment and training expenses, as well as retention bonus, are revenue in nature and should be allowed in full. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparable companies from the analysis due to functional dissimilarity, lack of opportunity, or incomplete financial data.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding undisclosed sales, finding the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IB(11A), finding the assessee's business integrated and fulfilling statutory conditions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude 'Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd.' from the list of comparables due to non-availability of segmental accounts, abnormal profits, and a significantly higher asset base. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding undisclosed sales, finding the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IB(11A), finding the assessee's business integrated and fulfilling statutory conditions.