Loading ITAT cases…
383 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was made ex parte and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain his case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed telescoping benefit for commission expenses against bogus purchases. For the unexplained expenditure on gold coins, the Tribunal held that telescoping benefit could only be claimed against additions in the assessee's own case, not group concerns.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal allowed telescoping benefit for commission expenses against bogus purchases. For the unexplained expenditure on gold coins, the Tribunal held that telescoping benefit could only be claimed against additions in the assessee's own case, not group concerns.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A was vitiated as the search was not conducted at the assessee's premises and the seized documents belonged to other entities. The addition was also not based on incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, as evidenced by the order issued by the designated authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details of dividend from mutual funds, which were held for investment and not for trading. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee did not provide a breakup was erroneous.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was under Section 143(3) and the issue of purchases was examined, reopening under Section 147 without alleging failure to disclose material facts was invalid. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to delete the disallowance made under Section 14A, finding parity with a previous decision. It also directed the deletion of the addition on account of SAR expenses, following a coordinate bench's ruling.
The Tribunal found that the AO should have made an inquiry from the Tax Auditor to verify the discrepancy. Since the AO sought to amend a concluded assessment, he was required to verify the facts. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order and directed him to decide the issue afresh after making necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal held that depreciation adjustment on comparables was allowable, reversing the DRP's finding. It also directed the TPO to re-examine two comparable companies for functional comparability and to provide working capital adjustment computations to the assessee. The R&D cess was allowed as an admissible expense.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench that allowed depreciation on tenancy rights. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court judgments in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service, held that delayed employee contributions to PF and ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Rule 8D for the assessment year in question as it was not applicable. While no disallowance could be made on account of interest expenditure, a fair estimation for administrative expenditure related to exempt income was made.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. and held that belated payment of employee's contribution towards PF and ESI should not be treated as deemed income of the employer. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This failure violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO to verify if the Rs. 25 lakh entry pertained to AY 2011-12 or AY 2012-13. If it pertained to AY 2012-13, the addition for AY 2011-12 was to be deleted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the advance pricing agreement. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be confusing and not in line with the facts. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the Assessing Officer's order giving effect to the Tribunal's decision in the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AA was condoned by the CBDT. No other defects were pointed out by the AO, and the assessee was registered under FCRA, allowing foreign contributions. Therefore, the exemption should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition made on account of TDS and restricted the addition on account of commission to 2.24% of gross receipts, following past precedents. The assessee had already declared a net profit of 2.31% on contract receipts.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is warranted when the delayed contributions are deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment by Finance Act 2021 was deemed not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal clarified that the grounds raised by the Revenue were to be dismissed, not allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application due to the assessee's past non-cooperation and failure to file documents. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to cooperate and present its case, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) infringed the principles of natural justice by passing a cryptic order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate their case, with the CIT(A) to decide afresh.
The Tribunal held that including the disputed comparables would result in an ALP adjustment within the tolerance margin of TP guidelines. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be confusing and not in line with the facts. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the Assessing Officer's order giving effect to the Tribunal's decision in the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that payments for embedded software supplied with hardware are not taxable as royalty, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, they can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that payments for embedded software supplied with hardware are not taxable as royalty, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the commission income rightly belonged to the HUF, as evidenced by commission bills, HUF's accounts with the payer, TDS certificates, and bank deposits. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the search warrant issued for the joint locker was illegal, as established in a prior High Court ruling concerning the co-holder. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 153A was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the percentage completion method requires periodic recognition of income. Since the proceedings for earlier years had attained finality, the AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee for the excessively taxed amount to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a Supreme Court order that imposed a moratorium on proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal after the moratorium period ends.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.