Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 11 of 14
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have filed a return in response to a notice u/s 148, but the AO stated otherwise. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the assessment year. Since no such material was found, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the assessment year. Since no such material was found, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a retracted statement without corroborating material found during search are unsustainable. Completed assessments cannot be disturbed under Section 153A without incriminating material unearthed during search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the seized documents were part of the assessee's regular books of accounts and did not contain any incriminating material. The satisfaction note by the AO was also found to be lacking in establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the seized documents were part of the assessee's regular books of accounts and did not contain any incriminating material. The satisfaction note by the AO was also found to be lacking in establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the seized documents were part of the assessee's regular books of accounts and did not contain any incriminating material. The satisfaction note by the AO was also found to be lacking in establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The tribunal held that passing an order against a dissolved entity is a substantive illegality and a nullity in the eyes of law, not curable under Section 292B. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not specifically addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the jurisdictional aspect.
The Tribunal found that the specific legal challenges to the assumption of jurisdiction were not specifically addressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order.
The assessee's authorized representative informed the tribunal that the appeal was to be withdrawn as the assessee's declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, had been accepted. The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The CBDT Circular No. 09/2014, which was relied upon by the AO for retrospective application, was found to be prospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances in Section 153A assessments must have a direct nexus with incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee lost her property without consideration, it cannot be treated as capital gains. It also directed the assessee to offer rental income to tax when received, as a dispute was settled.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the transfer of CCDs were in the nature of capital gains and not interest income. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the AAR ruling and held that the transaction was a genuine commercial venture and the legal nature of CCDs should not be ignored.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding commission paid to Mrs. Nirmala Shukla, noting that similar payments were accepted in prior and subsequent years. The disallowance of commission to Mrs. Swati Gupta was also deleted, as the AO accepted such payments in later years. The depreciation issue was remanded to the AO for verification of the cost of land included in the factory building.
The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which prescribe monetary limits for preferring appeals. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable, following the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in mechanically applying Rule 8D without recording satisfaction or pointing out infirmities in the assessee's suo-moto disallowance. The investment was deemed to be made from interest-free funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Revenue's acceptance of depreciation on manufacturing machinery contradicted its argument that no manufacturing occurred. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had allowed a similar claim in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the interest on term loan was paid by debiting the cash credit account, and credits in the cash credit account were more than the interest debited, indicating actual payment. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 43B was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO, directing him to examine the claim afresh with supporting evidence. The assessee was given an opportunity to furnish necessary documents and be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It noted that the expenses increased proportionately with the turnover and that the AO had not found any specific discrepancies in the audited books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for TDS on transponder charges due to a retrospective amendment of Section 9, as it would be an impossible task to comply. It also held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned during the year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the revenue as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's statement that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held responsible for the technical error of the bank in reflecting the deposit date. Therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous assessment years where the issue was decided against the assessee. Following the co-ordinate bench's decision, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the material on record, and directed that the appeal be treated as withdrawn. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not fully settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the transfer of CCDs should be treated as capital gains, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts or new material presented by the Revenue to deviate from the earlier ruling.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's objections and had not assessed or reassessed the income that formed the basis of the reassessment notice. Therefore, it was not open to the AO to assess income under some other issue independently.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing before the CIT(A) and that affording an opportunity to the assessee would not prejudice the revenue. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal is hearing an appeal by the Revenue challenging the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning surplus, commercial expenses, and other expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted these additions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, relying on its own previous orders for the same assessee in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the depreciation was added back in the return and corpus donations are not income.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide speaking orders on the assessees' objections to the DVO report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these objections.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed prematurely and without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the AO had duly examined the issues raised by the Pr. CIT and that the Pr. CIT's conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was misplaced. The Tribunal held that the AO is not expected to minutely examine the utilization of gifts if the assessee has provided explanations and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order did not meet the statutory requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The tribunal also considered the possibility of non-representation due to address confusion.
The Tribunal held that even with a minor delay or confusion regarding service of the assessment order, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning any delay and providing an opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not deciding the appeal on merits and assigning reasons. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.