Loading ITAT cases…
353 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the Section 263 order, which formed the basis for the AO's assessment, had been quashed by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the assessment orders and additions made by the AO were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the Section 263 order, which formed the basis for the AO's assessment, had been quashed by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the assessment orders and additions made by the AO were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the statutory time limit. This was considered a jurisdictional defect, similar to a previous ruling on the assessee's father's case.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act 2021, apply prospectively from Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, these amendments were not applicable to the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not decide the issue in the right perspective by not following the rule of consistency and considering the 'purpose of business' expression. The Tribunal found that expenses incurred to preserve business assets are for the purpose of business.
The Tribunal found that various details and documentary evidence filed by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A. It was noted that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, and the CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on this matter.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest expense disallowance, following the Supreme Court's ruling in S.A. Builders Ltd. regarding the nexus between expenditure and business purpose. The Tribunal also upheld the partial sustainment of the transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee, citing High Court judgments that define corporate guarantee as an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to seek recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of unlisted equity shares, which was the reason for limited scrutiny, and had made inquiries. The PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially when a possible view was taken by the AO.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not decide the issue in the right perspective by not following the rule of consistency and considering the 'purpose of business' expression. The Tribunal found that expenses incurred to preserve business assets are for the purpose of business.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest expense disallowance, following the Supreme Court's ruling in S.A. Builders Ltd. regarding the nexus between expenditure and business purpose. The Tribunal also upheld the partial sustainment of the transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee, citing High Court judgments that define corporate guarantee as an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly rejected the condonation of delay by asking the assessee to prove a negative. The burden was on the Revenue to prove proper service of the assessment order. Technicalities should not prevail over justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that various details and documentary evidence filed by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the unsecured loans and business expenses with necessary evidence, leading to the disallowance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee intended to resolve the issue under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction despite multiple opportunities, and the reason for the high premium was unexplained.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was to facilitate compliance with the conditions prescribed under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 and related rules.
The Tribunal held that the differences in Ahrat Commission and interest were minor and not indicative of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus deleting the penalty. Regarding additional depreciation, the Tribunal found that the assessee should not suffer due to a Chartered Accountant's mistake, especially in the absence of contumacious conduct, and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal held that impairment loss, when accounted for as per AS-28 and written off in the books, is not a provision for diminution in value that needs to be added back for book profit computation under Section 115JB. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the Revenue not objecting.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of expenditure, even if not accepted by the Revenue, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was found unjustified for all the disallowances made.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty imposed no longer survived. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction by re-including M/s. Karvy Consultants Ltd. as a comparable, as its turnover from the ITeS segment was below the threshold previously set by the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) to exclude it was upheld.
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after obtaining approval and issued notices under Section 148 and 142(1). Due to non-compliance by the assessee, the assessment was completed under Section 144.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible. This is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was confirmed by the issuance of a certificate and payment of dues.
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 approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that they were no longer aggrieved. The subsequent assessment order did not cause any prejudice to the assessee's interests.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was accepted. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine because the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue can seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the scheme's benefits.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise. The department raised no objection to this.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the designated authority had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the dispute was settled.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and made the necessary payment. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and made the necessary payment. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was made on the basis of conjecture and surmises without any adverse material or specific findings regarding the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was made on the basis of conjecture and surmises without any adverse material or specific findings regarding the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance could not be sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.