Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal related to the addition was already allowed by a co-ordinate bench, the basis for the penalty no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty was to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction assumed by the AO under Section 147 was bad in law as it was based on a 'change of opinion' and for mere verification of genuineness of transactions, not escapement of income. The assessment framed was therefore void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeals had a low tax effect, falling below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were to be disposed of as per the circular.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no addition on account of the quantum of share transactions was called for as the assessee incurred a loss. The enhancement of Rs. 5 lakhs was deleted as it was beyond the mandate of the ITAT's previous order and unsustainable on merits. The claim under Section 80C was allowed as the premium payment was not disputed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no illegality in the relief granted. The assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80IC based on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of income. The existence of a legal battle with former directors was considered sufficient evidence of a reasonable cause.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench's decision in identical matters for preceding and succeeding assessment years. The Assessing Officer's determination of transfer price was found to be incorrect, and the assessee's claim was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was uncalled for and without basis, especially since the assessee was only procuring orders and not involved in physical transportation. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the estimated profit by the CIT(A) and the disallowance of a portion of salary expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the disallowance was covered by previous Tribunal orders and that the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction based on a Supreme Court ruling regarding substantial expansion.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to comply with the e-filing requirement. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The assessment order was annulled by the CIT(A) in a prior proceeding, and subsequent reassessment proceedings were deemed illegal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the requisite details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses should be examined for capitalization. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal found that both properties were used for business purposes and allowed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by issuing notice under Section 148 was bad in law. The correlation between the information received and the assessee's balance sheet was not properly made by the AO.
The Tribunal directed deletion of disallowances on mobile expenses and interest on car loan, stating the AO did not prove otherwise and the disallowance on interest was beyond the Act. The assessee was directed to produce details for donation and Diwali expenses to justify the claims.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee, including a High Court ruling. The High Court had clarified that section 13(1)(b) is not attracted if the religious and charitable activities are not exclusively for a particular community.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for sale of content and software expenses, finding them to be repetitive issues decided in favor of the assessee. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed recomputation considering only investments yielding exempt income. For consultancy expenses, the Tribunal held that expenses related to merger valuation should be treated under Section 35DD, and other consultancy for website development should be treated as revenue expenditure.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to furnish relevant evidence in the interest of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the write-back of unclaimed expenses should be considered part of income eligible for deduction under Section 10AA, as it arose from export business. It also ruled that brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation should not be set off against profits before calculating the Section 10AA deduction, following the principle laid down in Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was disallowed because the project did not meet the mandatory conditions, specifically regarding the completion date and compliance with Explanation clause (ii).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for sale of content and software expenses, finding them to be repetitive issues decided in favor of the assessee. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed recomputation considering only investments yielding exempt income. For consultancy expenses, the Tribunal held that expenses related to merger valuation should be treated under Section 35DD, and other consultancy for website development should be treated as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was an advance for the purchase of property, a business transaction, and not a loan. Following a CBDT circular, it ruled that such trade advances do not fall under the ambit of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee, including a High Court ruling. The High Court had clarified that section 13(1)(b) is not attracted if the religious and charitable activities are not exclusively for a particular community.
The Tribunal held that lease rent payments were not subject to TDS under Section 194J, and interest liability would be verified with Noida Authority. For advertisement expenses, the Tribunal ruled that payments to advertising agencies fall under Section 194C, not Section 194J, and directed deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that a liberal approach should be taken for condoning delay, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that no grant income was received by the assessee during the year due to pending inquiries and conditions attached to the grant sanction. Therefore, the expenditure incurred could not be disallowed as grant income.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which penalty was leviable. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and a Form No.3 was issued. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and a Form No.3 was issued. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for an earlier assessment year. The claim for depreciation was also allowed, following a Delhi High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that interest income from bank deposits is taxable and not deductible under Section 80P, upholding the lower authorities' view. For the disallowance of legal/audit expenses, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to allow deduction if the payee offered the income and conditions of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) are met. Similarly, the gratuity provision was remanded to the AO to verify if it was paid to an approved gratuity fund before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations and PAN details, to establish the genuineness of sundry creditors, advances from customers, and the ICICI bank credit balance. The Tribunal also found that the gold shortage, discount, and expenses were adequately explained and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute was not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of interest was not justified. The CIT(A) had established a direct correlation between interest-bearing funds and their utilization for interest-bearing ICDs to subsidiaries, deeming the expense incidental to business.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present her case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate her case without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's work did not qualify as the development of an infrastructure facility as required for deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the order granting registration was justification to give effect to it from the originally sought date. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration from the assessment year 2017-18.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's 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 since the additions made in the quantum assessment proceedings were deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied for concealment of income has no basis. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the Rs. 50 lakhs limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalties were based had been deleted by a coordinate bench, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.