Loading ITAT cases…
383 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the AO's notice did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000 prescribed by CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal deleted additions related to stock differences, finding that inventory variations due to production standards and weight-based invoicing made projections unreliable. Additions based on information from the Excise Department for non-abated assessments were also deleted as they were outside the scope of section 153A.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to demonstrate the receipt of administrative services from its AE. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions based on projected physical inventory differences due to production variations. Additions related to suppressed sales were remanded for clear adjudication by the CIT(A). Additions based on information from the Excise Department for non-abated assessment years were deleted.
The tribunal deleted additions related to stock differences, finding that inventory variations due to production standards and weight-based invoicing made projections unreliable. Additions based on information from the Excise Department for non-abated assessments were also deleted as they were outside the scope of section 153A.
The Tribunal held that club expenses are business expenditure and allowable, following its own prior decisions. For prior period expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, acknowledged that the assessee was seeking one more opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. It was undisputed that the AO's order was an ex-parte order passed under Section 144. The Tribunal affirmed the established principle of natural justice that a litigant must be heard before a decision is taken and that an AO must confront the assessee with material obtained from third parties or own sources before making additions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the file of the AO, with a direction to decide the matter afresh after considering the assessee's submissions and granting adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to promptly furnish all required details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that club expenses are business expenditure and allowable, following its own prior decisions. For prior period expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that club expenses are business expenditure and allowable, following its own prior decisions. For prior period expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal held that since the property remained vacant for the entire previous year and the assessee made efforts to let it out unsuccessfully, the annual value should be considered 'NIL' under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. The AO's application of Section 23(1)(a) was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) and that the disallowance made by the AO was excessive and lacked nexus with the expenditure incurred. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that club expenses are business expenditure and allowable, following its own prior decisions. For prior period expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, deleting some additions related to stock variations and sales made out of books based on excise information. Other issues were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI should not be disallowed as expenditure. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. The legislative intent is to allow expenditure only when payment is actually made, and belated payment of employee contributions to EPF and ESI should not be treated as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI should be deleted. This was based on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the entire amount as unexplained income. However, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the profit element of the excess receipts.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning unsecured loans and deductions under Sections 80C and 80D, finding sufficient documentary evidence. However, the disallowance of car and telephone expenses was upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh hearing and disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fee under Section 234E, were prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees for defaults prior to this date were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable, following its own consistent decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of disallowance of rent and cash handling charges.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fee levied under Section 234E, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the legislative intent is to allow expenditure only upon actual payment and not to treat belated payment of employee's PF and ESI as deemed income. Following the Delhi High Court judgment in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the foreign company for the purchase and resale of software, under a distribution agreement where no copyright was transferred, did not constitute royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.