Loading ITAT cases…
508 orders · Page 3 of 11
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 held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on an employee's statement who was not involved in accounts, and there was no tangible evidence of suppressed sales. The Tribunal also allowed a partial disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the annual license fee, paid pursuant to an agreement from 2006, had been accepted as revenue expenditure in earlier years. The Tribunal found no justification for disallowing the expenditure solely because the Revenue had filed an SLP in unrelated cases with similar facts, emphasizing consistency in tax treatment.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
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 held that the expenditure incurred for overhauling the old machine, which involved replacing parts to restore operational efficiency without creating a new asset, was revenue expenditure. This decision was based on distinguishing facts from a previous assessment year and relying on coordinate bench and High Court rulings.
The ITAT, while disagreeing with the assessee on the applicability of Rule 27 for raising additional grounds, overturned the CIT(A)'s decision on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine reason and business prudence for accepting the loan in cash due to the contingency. The source of funds was undisputed and did not prejudice the revenue, thus the penalty was not justified.
The ITAT, while disagreeing with the assessee on the applicability of Rule 27 for raising additional grounds, overturned the CIT(A)'s decision on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS). Both parties agreed that the appeal had become infructuous and should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on an employee's statement who was not involved in accounts, and there was no tangible evidence of suppressed sales. The Tribunal also allowed a partial disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 14A.
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 the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings, examining the details provided by the assessee regarding share trading and service receipts. The PCIT's order was based on a second opinion and did not demonstrate any new material or escapement of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 3%, finding that the assessee had agreed to providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument to apply the lower rate from subsequent years due to differing facts.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) because the assessee was in judicial custody during the relevant period, which prevented him from presenting his case. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of foreign travel expenditure, following its own earlier decisions for the assessee's own case in prior assessment years. It found no evidence to suggest that the expenditure was not for business purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and intended to withdraw the appeal. Both parties agreed that the appeal had become infructuous due to the scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, stating that the COVID-19 pandemic hindered the assessee's ability to provide necessary information. It restored the applications to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid ab initio because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the stipulated time limit of September 30, 2016.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was largely explained by approval slips from Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers Ltd. and personal gifts. The investment in shares was also deemed explained by bank statements showing transfers from a related entity.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAA cannot be levied if the revenue failed to question the assessee regarding the manner of deriving undisclosed income during the statement recorded under section 132(4). As the assessee had paid taxes and interest and no such query was made, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, stating that the COVID-19 pandemic hindered the assessee's ability to provide necessary information. It restored the applications to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was largely explained by approval slips from Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers Ltd. and personal gifts. The investment in shares was also deemed explained by bank statements showing transfers from a related entity.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on an ad-hoc basis without sufficient justification and that the lower authorities had rejected the statutory auditor's clarification of a clerical error without adequate reasons. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found and the details were already disclosed and considered in the original assessment, the additions were not justified.
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 since the surrendered income was declared in the return of income filed within the prescribed time, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
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 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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. 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 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 noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form-3 had been issued, indicating an intent to withdraw the appeal. Both parties agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the applications. It reasoned that the trust had multiple charitable objects beyond just medical research and that potential commercial implications should be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the stage of registration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, sustaining an addition of Rs. 6,90,000/-. This was due to the assessee's failure to prove the creditworthiness of lenders/donors and the genuineness of the transactions, particularly regarding the source of cash gifts from his mother, wife, and brother.
The Tribunal held that receipts from PGCIL did not qualify as 'Royalty' under the India-US DTAA. Similarly, payments for software licenses to NDPL were not considered 'Royalty' based on the Supreme Court's decision in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence case.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI if the payments are made before the due date of filing the return of income, following High Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision on identical facts for earlier assessment years. It provided similar directions to the Assessing Officer as in the prior ruling.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is sustainable without exempt income, and delayed employee contributions to EPF/ESI are not disallowable if deposited before the return filing due date. The addition for unexplained cash was deleted due to lack of evidence.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The ITAT accepted the request and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that receipts from PGCIL did not qualify as 'Royalty' under the India-US DTAA. Similarly, payments for software licenses to NDPL were not considered 'Royalty' based on the Supreme Court's decision in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence case.
The Tribunal held that receipts from PGCIL did not qualify as 'Royalty' under the India-US DTAA. Similarly, payments for software licenses to NDPL were not considered 'Royalty' in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal found that while the service agreement and bills existed, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual service rendition, the specific persons involved, and contemporaneous charge-out rates. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the TPO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with Berry ratio as the profit level indicator should be adopted, following previous decisions for the assessee. It directed that the Free On Board (FOB) value of goods should not be considered in calculating ALP and ordered a fresh comparability analysis.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was liable to be set aside. It was decided that the assessee cannot be forced to wait for recovery to be finalized and that any subsequent recoveries should be offered as income in the year of receipt.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding EPF/ESIC, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. However, for sponsorship fees, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of evidence.