Loading ITAT cases…
383 orders · Page 3 of 8
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 issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' PF and ESI contributions is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves a fair opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh.
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.
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.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves a fair opportunity to be heard before the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the appeal was disposed of ex-parte, the matter is restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenditure on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI is not sustainable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI is not sustainable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the sale occurred on the date of the MOU was factually incorrect because the actual part sale consideration was paid much later. Therefore, rent paid prior to the actual part payment of sale consideration is allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had received Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was treated as infructuous and withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the declared sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was marginal and within the 5% threshold stipulated in the third proviso to Section 50C(1). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not verify the facts and the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Authority. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, following its previous decisions in similar cases within the same group.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of ALV was a debatable issue with two possible views, and the assessee had taken a plausible view. Additionally, the notice for penalty was found to be invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC for investments made within six months of the transfer, even if they fall into two financial years. The AO's observation regarding the amended provision was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, following its previous decisions in similar cases within the same group.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not adequately consider the evidence filed by the assessee and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to sundry creditors, finding that the transactions were genuine and supported by evidence. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its books.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to sundry creditors, finding that the transactions were genuine and supported by evidence. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its books.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty is no longer sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only in case of a change in the immediate shareholding of a company. Since the immediate holding company, WSP Cyprus, remained the same, the change in the ultimate holding company did not trigger Section 79. The disallowance of club expenditure was also confirmed as allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only in case of a change in the immediate shareholding of a company. Since the immediate holding company, WSP Cyprus, remained the same, the change in the ultimate holding company did not trigger Section 79. The disallowance of club expenditure was also confirmed as allowable business expenditure.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal noted the application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be computed on investments that have yielded exempt income. It also held that compensation received due to delay in execution of contracts for acquisition of fixed assets is a capital receipt, not revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the expenditures and loans, and that the AO's adverse inferences were not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee was a charitable trust and the funds were applied for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the payment was for relinquishing rights in the land and not commission/brokerage, and that the expenditure incurred in an earlier financial year could not be disallowed in the current assessment year.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute was not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that while revised claims are generally made via revised returns, appellate authorities can entertain them. Since there was a dispute about whether evidence was filed, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are not applicable to bonus shares. Bonus shares represent a capitalization of profits by the issuing company and do not result in the receipt of new property by the shareholder without consideration.
The Tribunal held that RIC was an independent consultant and not a DAPE as it did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee and was engaged in its own business. The Tribunal also noted that the project was executed jointly with an Indian consortium partner.
The Tribunal held that additions related to share capital and kickbacks were not sustainable in the hands of the assessee as an individual. It also found that certain additions were made without proper application of mind and deleted them.
The Tribunal, following a previous order of a coordinate bench upheld by the High Court, held that there cannot be any profit element in intra-group transactions. The AO was directed to consider transactions with outside parties only for profit computation.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous order. Therefore, the levy of penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the internal disputes and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents. The appeals were then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that additions related to share capital and kickbacks were not sustainable in the hands of the assessee as an individual. It also found that certain additions were made without proper application of mind and deleted them.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the internal disputes and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents. The appeals were then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) after the filing of the return in response to a notice under Section 148 is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. The issue of duplicate PANs was considered irrelevant.
The Tribunal held that the engineering fees were not taxable as FIS because the assessee did not make available technical knowledge to the recipient. It also held that software reimbursements were not taxable as royalty as they were at-cost reimbursements and did not involve the transfer of a right to use copyright.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue was without legal basis. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the evidence submitted by the assessee and pass a fresh order on merits. The assessee was instructed to provide all necessary details to the AO for an early disposal of the case.
The Tribunal held that RIC was an independent consultant and not a DAPE as it did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee and was engaged in its own business. The Tribunal also noted that the project was executed jointly with an Indian consortium partner.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the internal disputes and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents. The appeals were then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as the assessee was not found in possession of money, and the additions were based on assumptions. Furthermore, the amounts allegedly received were returned on the same day.