Loading ITAT cases…
508 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance under Section 14A as it was restricted to dividend earned and the denial of set-off of losses due to change in shareholding under Section 79.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which sustained the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed a previous order concerning the assessee's brother, who was a co-owner of the property. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following Delhi High Court decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings or provide evidence of higher judicial pronouncements overturning the earlier decision.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act and the issuance of Form No. 5. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the assessee opting for the Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the Revenue's no objection.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the issue of cash deposits was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
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 order, finding no infirmity. The reopening of assessment was deemed proper, and the additions made based on stock exchange information and capital investment were sustained.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO. Consequently, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the issue should be set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh order. This would allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI made after the statutory due dates but before the return filing due date is not justified. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and directed the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of software were not royalty, as the transaction was a sale of goods. It further noted that even if considered royalty, the India-UK DTAA's definition was restrictive and did not include software, making it taxable as business income through the Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A), finding that the rental income derived from sub-letting space for storing nursery plants was not agricultural income and was taxable under 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass a draft assessment order before issuing the final assessment order, when issues were remanded back by the ITAT, was a procedural irregularity that rendered the assessment unsustainable. This was considered a non-curable defect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the loan provider had appeared before the AO and provided necessary documentation. The Tribunal noted that the provider's business was found to be existing and their accounts were audited without adverse remarks from any authority.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s enhancement of income was beyond his jurisdiction as it pertained to different loans than those disallowed by the AO. Therefore, the enhancement was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the statutory power to direct the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148. Such directions are beyond the scope of the appellate authority's powers.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment for being void ab initio due to incorrect application of limitation periods under Section 153C. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that taxing the same income substantively in the hands of both the assessee and a developer company was unjustified.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for financial charges and Rs. 54,307 from other expenses. The issues regarding Rs. 8,55,000 (interest) and Rs. 5,34,420 (excise duty) were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment for being void ab initio due to incorrect application of limitation periods under Section 153C. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that taxing the same income substantively in the hands of both the assessee and a developer company was unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had sufficient and relevant material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. However, regarding the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the creditworthiness and genuineness of the sources of funds, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had sufficient and relevant material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. However, regarding the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the creditworthiness and genuineness of the sources of funds, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal held that off-the-shelf computer software, as defined in Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, is specifically included as an item of machinery and plant. Therefore, it is eligible for depreciation at the rate prescribed for plant and machinery, not as an intangible asset.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case had remanded a similar issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal also remanded the current issue to the Assessing Officer for proper examination and a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was set aside by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the present appeal, being consequential, was also set aside to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in a previous appeal. Therefore, the penalty did not survive.
The Tribunal held that for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C, the AO of the searched person must record satisfaction that seized material belongs to a third party. In this case, such satisfaction was not recorded, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The jurisdictional AO subsequently completed the assessment based on reasons recorded by the non-jurisdictional officer, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was invalid due to lack of application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The tribunal likely agreed with the CIT(A) that non-production of subscribers should not lead to disallowance if other evidence is satisfactory.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity and concluding that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal agreed that a new unit was established, not a conversion of an existing one.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officers were incorrect. It followed numerous judicial precedents which held that such payments, if made before the due date of filing the return, are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously set aside the 8% estimation for AY 2010-11 and accepted a net profit rate of 3% based on past accepted profit ratios. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 3% of contract receipts.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.