Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that for proceedings under section 153C, the AO of the searched person must record satisfaction before transmitting the record to the AO of the other person. Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person (Shri N.K. Jain), the assessment under section 153C was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, finding that the various Service Order Forms (SOFs) constituted interconnected and related projects. However, the determination of taxable income was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to approach the Tribunal if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not dispute that services were rendered by these employees. The disallowance was made without determining the reasonable sum for the services or establishing a legitimate business need. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, as evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 3.
The Tribunal held that the sums received from the assessee's son, who resides in Australia, were sufficiently proved by the passport details. Regarding other cash deposits claimed as gifts from relatives and friends, the Tribunal found that the AO had made additions without proper verification, despite the assessee providing details of the sources.
The Tribunal clarified that the correct date of hearing and pronouncement for the appeal was 05/08/2021, not 04/08/2021 as mistakenly recorded. The substantive decision of the appeal remains unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and also violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and sought to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of revenue recognition was previously accepted and upheld by the High Court, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeals on this issue. Regarding the interest on subsidiary investments, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the investments, so no notional interest addition was warranted, directing its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of revenue recognition was previously accepted and upheld by the High Court, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeals on this issue. Regarding the interest on subsidiary investments, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the investments, so no notional interest addition was warranted, directing its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the Development Authority were charitable in nature and that the infrastructure development fund was not under the exclusive control of the assessee. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn and dismissed due to the settlement under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law due to the AO's non-application of mind and failure to gather independent material. The AO's satisfaction was considered 'borrowed' from the Investigation Wing's report.
The Tribunal held that notices issued to a deceased assessee after his death are invalid. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the assessment order passed on a dead person was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of ESOP compensation disallowance, citing previous favorable decisions for the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the AO had mechanically applied Rule 8D without demonstrating the inadequacy of the assessee's suo motu disallowance.
The Tribunal found that some disallowances made by the CPC resulted in double additions or disallowances. For other disallowances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's submissions regarding reconciliation and correct disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal summarily without considering the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF and ESI for late deposit, when made before the due date of filing the return of income, was not justified. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF and ESI for late deposit, when made before the due date of filing the return of income, was not justified. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which provided specific directions for computing disallowable expenditure on lease rent. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on these directions.
The Tribunal found that some disallowances made by the CPC resulted in double additions or disallowances. For other disallowances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's submissions regarding reconciliation and correct disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a cash book and other financial documents which were not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons supplied to the assessee for reopening were not the same as the detailed reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. This deviation violates principles of natural justice and transparency, thus vitiating the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the loan creditors. The fact that the AO of the depositors had added income from the sale of these shares proved the source of funds for the lenders.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while condonation of delay is not a right, the interest of justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the Assessing Officer's findings regarding concealment versus furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 21 lakhs was made without any basis, material, or evidence, relying on surmises and conjectures from text messages. It also noted that the investigation into the friend who allegedly sent the messages found no adverse findings, supporting the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, as evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 3.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal clarified that the correct date of hearing and pronouncement for the appeal was 05/08/2021, not 04/08/2021 as mistakenly recorded. The substantive decision of the appeal remains unchanged.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that identical issues in previous assessment years were decided in favour of the assessee, with the Tribunal itself having dismissed the Revenue's appeals. No fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings was pointed out by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the registration application. It was noted that the CIT did not dispute the charitable objects of the trust and that the company had been granted a license under Section 8 of the Companies Act.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the lease rental issue, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision that settled the matter in favour of the assessee. However, the disallowance of interest paid on TDS was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA retrospectively from AY 2015-16, its income should be computed under Sections 11 and 12. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the amount approved by DSIR. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction for the remaining R&D expenditure, which was not eligible for weighted deduction, under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the write-off for garment shortages and unreturned uniforms were directly related to the business and thus allowable. However, for notice pay, the assessee failed to provide evidence of recovery efforts, so it was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) is prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, CSR expenses incurred in the current assessment year (2014-15) cannot be disallowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the actual sale consideration should be taken if the difference with stamp duty value is less than 10%. It also allowed deduction for investment in two adjoining residential units and deleted the addition for unexplained investment.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty is cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the related quantum appeal by the Revenue was dismissed and the assessee's cross-appeal was allowed, the penalty appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the amount approved by DSIR. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction for the remaining R&D expenditure, which was not eligible for weighted deduction, under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the issue of trademark fee adjustment was covered by its previous decisions in favour of the assessee. It also held that the ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses was not permissible and directed its deletion.