Loading ITAT cases…
492 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order forming the basis for the penalty was quashed, the penalty itself could not survive. The penalty was cancelled as there was no longer any basis for its levy.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without independent findings and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including RTI information from the Rubber Board, to prove that the alleged purchases were not made and his name was misused. The Assessing Officer failed to present contrary material.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of the international transaction. The issue was set aside to the TPO for re-determination using the CUP method.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act, rather than dismissing it solely for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had filed the required Form 3CEB and that the Transfer Pricing Officer had not made any adjustments. Therefore, Section 271G was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refunds and subsidies on DG sets are capital receipts and should not be included in the computation of total income or book profit under Section 115JB. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income should consider only investments yielding exempt income and verify financial costs. It also ruled that leave encashment is allowable in the year of actual payment, not provision.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income should consider only investments yielding exempt income and verify financial costs. It also ruled that leave encashment is allowable in the year of actual payment, not provision.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenses for earning dividend income should consider only investments yielding exempt income and verify financial costs. It also ruled that leave encashment is allowable in the year of actual payment, not provision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued 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 Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the intra-group services were intrinsically linked to the assessee's core business operations and thus at arm's length. Regarding interest on receivables, the Tribunal found that the debtor days for AEs were less than for non-AEs, and no interest was charged on non-AE receivables, justifying not charging interest on AE receivables.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the demand.
The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This defect renders the notice bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's power under Section 263 is supervisory and can revise orders even if they have prior approval from a superior officer like the Additional CIT. The Tribunal found no interference was called for in the revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing the entire difference in receipts, as gross receipts cannot be treated as income. Only the profit element embedded in such receipts should be taxed.
The Tribunal dismissed the 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 the remittance was made on 31.05.2013, making CBDT Circular No. 3/2016 applicable. This circular stated that consideration received on buyback of shares between 01.04.2000 and 31.05.2013 would be taxed as capital gains in the recipient's hands, not as dividend.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is entitled to deduction. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court decisions in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and SPL Industries vs. CIT.
The CIT(A) held that the payments received by the assessee do not fall within the definition of 'royalty' under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere with the decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's 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 appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) before framing the assessment under Section 147. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the deduction under Section 80IC. As no new material was presented to differentiate the current year, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including the grounds related to the reassessment validity and the addition on merits.
The Tribunal held that the project expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and were not in the nature of donations or capital expenditure. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries concerning the limited scrutiny issues. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal agreed that if the entire income was offered for taxation and the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the Revenue should have no grievance. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rendered otiose.
The Tribunal held that development fund receipts were correctly treated as liability and dismissed grounds related to it, citing previous High Court decisions. It also upheld the eligibility of the assessee for depreciation, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance of capital cannot be considered a cash credit under Section 68 for the current assessment year. The amounts were duly reflected in the balance sheets of prior years and were not disputed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice on the assessee for the quantum appeal. The quantum and penalty appeal proceedings are distinct.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was passed without proper inquiry, as it was completed without considering the TPO's report on significant international transactions. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the deposit of TDS before the due date of filing the return. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessee by multiple High Court decisions in similar cases. Therefore, the income of the assessee is not liable to tax in India.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer failed to make independent inquiries. The PAN for Ms. Neha Madan was found invalid, and the creditworthiness of Shri R.N. Arora was not sufficiently ascertained.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the University of Texas, USA, were not an application of income as per Section 11(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271J can only be levied on an accountant, merchant banker, or registered valuer. Since the penalty was levied on the assessee company, which does not fall under these categories, the levy was invalid.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to administrative expenses. For interest disallowance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of subscription and membership expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made an addition on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.) without proper verification or providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the transaction. The order of the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the entire claim of advances written off, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient justification and documentary evidence for the loss incurred in business transactions. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowance of expenses without pointing out specific personal expenses is unsustainable. It also held that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of self-assessment tax under Section 244A, considering various judicial precedents and the intent of the amendment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that no markup for transaction cost should be applied. However, an appropriate markup for credit rating should be applied. The matter was restored to the AO to decide the markup for credit rating.