Loading ITAT cases…
508 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the impugned properties were situated within 8 kilometers of a notified area. The Tribunal noted that it was not in dispute that the subject land was not located within the limits of the Municipal limits. Therefore, Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act was not attracted. The Tribunal found that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhu Kumar N. (HUF) squarely applied to the facts of the present case. The High Court had clarified that for agricultural land to be considered a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(b), the Central Government must have issued a notification including the area up to 8 kms from the municipal limits. As this condition was not met, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 14 of the IBC prohibits continuation of any proceedings against a company undergoing insolvency. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C of the Act could only be made in respect of issues for which incriminating material was found during the search. Since no such material was found for the year under consideration, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect vitiates the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction to levy the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's justification for imputing interest on outstanding receivables was not adequately supported by the record. The issue of characterization of the assessee's functions was also set aside.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to properly examine evidence and relied on previous year's reasoning without considering the current year's facts. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding Section 10A to be sound.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are invalid. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessment order was bad in law.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they have opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that a valid notice under Section 148 is a mandatory condition precedent for reassessment. Since the notice was not served at the assessee's correct address, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of additions/disallowances on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty could not survive. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was invalid. It failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, making it vague.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which the proceedings were initiated, making it bad in law. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the AO, especially when there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the notice initiating penalty proceedings was found to be defective for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which it was initiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of CBDT instruction No. 1916 regarding jewellery, presuming the source of up to 500g for a married woman as explained. However, the addition of Rs. 50,000/- cash was upheld due to lack of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal, filed by the Director of the company after the commencement of CIRP, was not maintainable. Only the Committee of Creditors or the IRP, if authorized, could pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case, emphasizing that no adjournments should be sought.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was in the absence of any objection from the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the excess of receipt over expenditure from hostel facilities, if incidental to the main educational activity, should not be treated as a separate income. It also considered the allowability of depreciation on the hostel block.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without sufficient evidence and on irrelevant considerations. The Tribunal found that the trust was carrying on genuine charitable activities as per Section 2(15) and directed the CIT to grant registration.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal decided that royalty payments should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Sales commission additions were confirmed, cost sharing charges were deemed an integral part of TNMM and no separate addition was required, and testing charges were not subject to addition. Refining charges were referred back to the AO for verification, foreign travel expenses were upheld, and AS 26 reconciliation was to be re-verified by the AO.
The Tribunal deleted Infosys BPM Ltd. and Dun & Bradstreet Technology & Data Services Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables, finding their FAR profiles did not match the assessee. Nihilent Analytics Limited was allowed as a comparable, subject to certain conditions.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum assessment proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was liable to be cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was in the nature of a commercial transaction and not a loan or advance attracting Section 2(22)(e). Relying on High Court judgments and a CBDT circular, it was concluded that trade advances do not fall within the ambit of deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was in the nature of a commercial transaction and not a loan or advance attracting Section 2(22)(e). It relied on High Court judgments and a CBDT circular stating that trade advances are not covered under this section.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
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 the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and accepted the prayer for withdrawal. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that if a deduction was allowed in earlier years on the same facts and claim, the Assessing Officer cannot take a fresh view. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it directed the TPO to reconsider the comparability of certain companies, including those failing the employee cost filter and companies with declining sales, and to consider risk adjustment for the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal may be treated as withdrawn. The tribunal agreed and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly found that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure for rejecting books of accounts and making a best judgment assessment. Since the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and no material was brought on record to justify the estimated disallowance, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee is directed to appear and substantiate their case without adjournments.
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 with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the tax effect exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular directs the Revenue not to prefer appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and conjectures, as there was no direct evidence of cash transactions. The Tribunal relied on the statement of Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, which contradicted the statement of Shri Devi Das Tikamdas Chattani.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on surmises and conjectures, relying heavily on the statement of one individual which was contradicted by another individual's statement. No direct evidence of cash transactions was presented.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following the Delhi High Court's decision.
The Tribunal accepted 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 found that admitting additional evidence would serve the interest of justice and help answer the queries raised by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.