Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E, introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, is prospective. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the levy of late fee for defaults prior to 01.06.2015 was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted due to the settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), stating that a difference of opinion on whether expenditure is capital or revenue does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The facts were identical to previous years where similar appeals by the department were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and additions cannot be made arbitrarily. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and additions cannot be made arbitrarily. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and additions cannot be made arbitrarily. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and additions cannot be made arbitrarily. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and additions cannot be made arbitrarily. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and clarified its applicability to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the departmental appeal was less than Rs. 50 lacs. As no exceptions were brought to notice, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it was covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the income credited to the corpus fund was a diversion of income by overriding title, as the fund belonged to the Central and State Governments. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that it is not applicable to insurance companies whose income is computed under Section 44 of the Act.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances related to depreciation on securities and contribution to the pension fund, following its own previous decisions. Consequently, the additions made to book profit on these grounds were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and abated assessments can be made. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and abated assessments can be made. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and abated assessments can be made. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, and abated assessments can be made. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure on an ad-hoc basis does not automatically lead to penalty. The revenue lacked evidence to prove the assessee received the disputed income, and the penalty was levied on charges not fully explained to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, dismissed the revenue's grounds related to depreciation on securities and pension fund contribution. The assessee's grounds regarding Section 14A disallowance and its impact on book profit were also dismissed, aligning with the revenue's dismissed grounds.
The Tribunal held that the documents found during the search did not pertain to the assessee and were not incriminating in nature. Therefore, the AO could not invoke Section 153C for a concluded assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income. It also found that the assessee had paid the taxes and interest in due time, considering the seized cash as advance tax, which was confirmed by a prior coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reopening was invalid. The Assessing Officer was unsure about whose income had escaped assessment and made a protective addition before any substantive addition, indicating a lack of application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was barred by limitation as it fell outside the six preceding assessment years from the date of handing over of documents/satisfaction note. Consequently, the assessment and all additions made were annulled.
The Tribunal held that Education Cess is deductible as an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, as it is a mandatory expense for business purposes and not a capital or personal expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made to the assessee's income were deleted by the CIT(A) based on the assessee's explanations, the non-compliance with notices was a technical breach. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not imposable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all necessary information and the difference arose from the AO's reworking of depreciation. Therefore, it was not a case of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2008-09 was barred by limitation as it fell outside the six preceding assessment years from the date of handing over of documents. Therefore, the assessment and consequent additions were annulled.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C for AY 2007-08 was barred by limitation. The period of six preceding assessment years should be reckoned from the date of handing over of documents or recording of satisfaction note, which in this case made AY 2007-08 outside the permissible scope.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the appeal fee challan. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after proper verification and opportunity.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Limited, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable because the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a vague and ambiguous notice under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act. The notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file necessary documentary evidence to support the claim of the source of investment in the property.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue had not appealed against the substantive assessment in the hands of the five individuals and that previous ITAT orders had quashed reassessment proceedings against them due to improper notice. The land revenue records also showed the five individuals as owners.
The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be improperly constituted due to the lack of clarity regarding which proceedings were being challenged and whether necessary approvals were obtained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the issues raised by the revenue had already been decided in the assessee's favor for earlier assessment years by the same Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had a valid registration under Section 12AA in earlier years and that the delay in obtaining a fresh certificate was due to the loss of documents in the Uttarakhand floods. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly dealt with the merits of the addition concerning management and consultancy fees. No separate markup addition was required when the TPO had already adopted the TNMM method.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal rectified a typographical mistake in its previous order. The corrected operative part of the order states that the revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is allowed.
The tribunal rectified a typographical mistake in its previous order. The corrected operative part of the order states that the revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that even if the CIT(A) rejected the rectification application on technical grounds, the penalty should be quashed as the basis for the penalty (additions in quantum proceedings) was deleted by the ITAT. The Tribunal emphasized substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s factual conclusion that interest expenses were not allocable to exempt income was not disputed by the Revenue and was supported by binding precedents. The Tribunal also confirmed the direction to recompute MAT after excluding the disallowance under Section 14A.
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.