Loading ITAT cases…
383 orders · Page 2 of 8
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 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, 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 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 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. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 CIT(A) cannot force an assessee to pursue an appeal after a withdrawal request and cannot make additions from a new source of income not considered by the AO. Consequently, the penalty also does not survive.
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 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 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. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 inserted 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 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 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 upheld the addition of Rs. 3.96 crores under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share application money. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowances of other expenses due to lack of proper vouching and non-production of supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without conducting independent enquiries. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's brokers were not implicated by SEBI, and SEBI's orders were passed after the transaction dates.
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Rule 8D(iii), only the average value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered, not total investments. The case was remanded to the AO for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was insufficient. The assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was insufficient. The assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Section 153C notice was void-ab-initio due to lack of proper satisfaction note and incriminating material. Therefore, the assessments based on such a notice were unsustainable.
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. 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 appellate authority's power is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and can admit additional grounds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for decision.
The tribunal acknowledged that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court judgment in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. The legislative intent is to allow expenditure when payment is actually made, not to treat belated payments as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority's power is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and can admit additional grounds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153A are bad in law if no assessment was pending at the time of search and no incriminating material was found. The addition made solely on the basis of the balance sheet filed with the original return is unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the Designated Authority had issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the annual mixed use charges are for regularization of commercial use of a property and not a 'tax' as defined under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax) Bye-Laws. Therefore, it is not allowable as a deduction under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to record and treated as dismissed, with a liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution if the settlement is not resolved.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority's power is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and can admit additional grounds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenditure on account of delayed deposit of employee contributions to EPF & ESI is not justified if the payment is made before the filing of the income tax return. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Limited.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, it should be allowed as an expense. The legislative intent is to allow expenditure upon actual payment, not to treat belated payments as deemed income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to explain the increase in capital. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, and therefore, the matter should be restored for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 crores was not sustainable. It relied on a Delhi High Court judgment that quashed the CBI charge sheet, finding no admissible evidence of bribery and explaining the amount found with the middleman as proceeds from agricultural land sale.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not contest the additions due to the ex-parte disposal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the primary condition for the applicability of Section 68, which requires a sum to be credited in the assessee's books for the relevant previous year, was not satisfied. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. The disallowances under Sections 37 and 32 were also deleted as they were based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALV of disputed properties to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination due to lack of evidence. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude ALV of properties used for business and those given on rent, and to delete the 5% increase on ALV. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, and the claim for advance lease rent was restored to the AO.