Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances in proceedings under section 153A must be based on incriminating or seized material found during the search. Since the AO's actions were not supported by such material, they were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the authorities had not properly appreciated the facts. The occupancy certificate indicated the construction was complete, and the assessee's claim of self-disallowing 50% depreciation for less than six months' use needed verification.
The Tribunal found the case peculiar with allegations of a duplicated PAN and deposits not belonging to the assessee. To ensure substantive justice and natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to provide a clear finding on the availability of cash with the assessee prior to demonetization. The addition was based on surmises, as the assessee had filed evidence of cash flow and availability, and there was no prohibition against depositing cash in multiple installments for safety reasons.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, and it is not necessary to prove the debt has become irrecoverable. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A(3) by admitting fresh evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the employees' unfamiliarity with e-filing procedures due to a recent switch to a new CBS system constituted a reasonable cause for delay. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and ITRs of the share applicants, establishing their identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The Tribunal also found that the substantial premium received was justified by the company's tangible assets and profits from land sale.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct independent inquiries to verify the assessee's claims regarding the sale of agricultural land and loans. The AO made additions solely based on the lack of registered sale deeds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, noting that the application for registration was filed in the previous year corresponding to assessment year 2018-19. The decision to grant registration from that year was in accordance with statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were essentially "sale of booking of plots" and that the sale and purchase of the property were not in dispute. Therefore, the profit or loss should be treated under the relevant head, which in this case is short-term capital loss.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal allowed the write-off of unutilized CENVAT credit as a business expenditure. It noted that such write-offs are a regular practice in the manufacturing sector and are allowed when the duty cannot be set off.
The Tribunal held that the interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises should not be treated as a separate international transaction requiring independent benchmarking, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant credit for foreign taxes and MAT credit as per law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that deficits from earlier years can be set off against the current year's income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the points raised were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal agreed that completed assessments, which had attained finality and were not abated, could only be interfered with if incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that additions or disallowances in proceedings under section 153A must be based on incriminating or seized material found during the search. Since the additions/disallowances were not based on such material, they were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had already made additions to cover leakage in trading results and for unverifiable purchases, a separate addition for sundry creditors was not justified. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, the deductions are allowable. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the current assessment year.
The tribunal decided to modify the previous order to reflect the correct name of the representative. All other aspects of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the current assessment order, was quashed by a previous ITAT ruling, the present assessment order had become infructuous. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the time limit stipulated in Section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the property sale transaction did not fall within the assessment year. It also accepted the assessee's agricultural income based on past acceptance and allowed the interest expense deduction due to consistent allowance in prior and subsequent years.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed on the unexplained jewellery addition as it was fully deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's appeal. However, the penalty on the unexplained cash addition was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (STT payment certificate) and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue after considering the new evidence and providing the assessee with a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Ltd., the penalty was deemed not leviable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Aarham Softronics, held that substantial expansion can reset the initial assessment year for claiming 100% deduction. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment can be made on account of notional interest on receivables, especially when the assessee is debt-free and does not charge interest on similar delays from unrelated parties. The delay in realization of sale proceeds is incidental to the sale transaction.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries on the issues raised by the PCIT and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations. The PCIT's attempt to substitute his own opinion for that of the AO was not the intent of Section 263. The PCIT's order lacked reasoning and a speaking order on the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions/disallowances that formed the basis for the penalty were reversed by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty itself had no surviving basis. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be reversed.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to treat the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore if errors are found in the settlement certificate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have rejected documentary evidence on technical grounds. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after the assessee furnished necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that overlooking a mandatory provision of law like Section 40A(3) in the original assessment is an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 154. However, since the assessee did not adequately establish its case under Rule 6DD, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the distance from the municipal limits needed to be determined as per Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for this determination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for one limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealing income) but penalty was imposed under another limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars). The show-cause notices were also found to be invalid as they did not specify the exact charge.
The Tribunal held that advances paid to prospective vendors, which were forfeited due to project abandonment and not repaid, should be treated as a business expense. The assessee is not required to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions based on the DVO's report if the assessee's books of account have not been rejected. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema, the Tribunal found that the ratio applies to the present case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions based on the DVO's report if the assessee's books of account have not been rejected. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sargam Cinema, the Tribunal found that the ratio applies to the present case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding that the AO had sufficient opportunity to respond but failed to do so. The addition on account of sundry creditors was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the land remained a capital asset due to peculiar circumstances and thus the sale should be treated as long term capital gains/loss. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to HCSL were not in the nature of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and were not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the assessee was not required to withhold tax on these remittances.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for one limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealing income) but penalty was imposed under another limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars). The show-cause notices were also found to be invalid as they did not specify the exact charge.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicant companies. The addition made by the AO was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that confirmations received from sundry creditors cannot be dismissed solely because they appear to be made by the same person. The revenue must prove the transactions are bogus. Therefore, additions made on account of creditors with duly filed confirmations were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transaction of purchase of trading goods for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This is because the assessee did not receive management support services in this year, unlike in previous years where TNMM was applied due to aggregation of transactions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the facts due to a lack of evidence. It noted that documentary evidence is not required to be filed with an electronically filed return. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The Tribunal relied on various co-ordinate bench decisions and the legal proposition that such deposits are allowable deductions.