Loading ITAT cases…
474 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal based on the available material and the Revenue's representative's arguments. The core issue revolved around a penalty levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal found that while some estimation was warranted due to the assessee's failure to corroborate expenses, the 50% disallowance by the CIT(A) was excessive. The disallowance was restricted to 25% of the expenses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief unilaterally without giving the AO an opportunity for enquiry or calling for a remand report. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit is a mandatory requirement for completing an assessment. Non-service of the notice cannot be cured under Section 292BB.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed by the department.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits reflected in the cash book should be deleted. It also directed the deletion of additions related to PRV Sales, credit from N.K. Mahajan, and amounts received from R.K. Apartments & Monika Mahajan, finding them duly supported by evidence and accepted in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that an international transaction of AMP functions exists and restored the issue to the TPO for benchmarking, following the directions of the Delhi High Court in the Sony Ericsson case. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and non-speaking orders without due consideration to the assessee's submissions. The Assessing Officer also failed to provide adequate opportunities. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and non-speaking orders without due consideration to the assessee's submissions. The Assessing Officer also failed to provide adequate opportunities. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Noida, lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 and pass the assessment order. The entire proceedings were therefore void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the investments were made from own funds.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue issuing the relevant forms.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue issuing the relevant forms.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue issuing the relevant forms.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the investments were made from own funds.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. This position was established by various High Court judgments, including the Delhi High Court, and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of one specific comparable company (Keynote Corporate Services Ltd.) due to functional dissimilarity. Regarding the claim for risk adjustment, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, emphasizing the assessee's burden to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was illegal. This was based on the reasoning that the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specifically state the grounds for imposing the penalty, violating the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that both the original and revised returns were defective as they were not accompanied by self-assessment tax. The AO should have issued a defect notice under Section 139(9) or proceeded under Section 144 for best judgment assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made substantial payments towards the new house within the stipulated time frame. The delay in possession was due to the builder, and Section 54 should be interpreted liberally as a beneficial provision.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no merit in the grounds raised. The grounds concerning the reopening of assessment, transfer of jurisdiction, and the timing of notices were rejected. The addition made by the AO, as partly confirmed by the CIT(A), was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had settled the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the dispute was not settled as per the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below made additions mechanically without proper inquiry. It noted that the assessee provided explanations regarding the source of funds, including payments through account payee cheques which were misconstrued as cash deposits by the AO. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case effectively before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the first appellate authority. The delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO under Section 142A was invalid for Section 69C. Furthermore, the CIT(A) lacked the power to re-characterize the addition under a different section (69B) without proper notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the source of investment was explained by withdrawals from the joint bank account, which had sufficient funds and a loan credited prior to the withdrawal. Therefore, the addition on account of unexplained investment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted by the CIT(A) pursuant to the Tribunal's earlier order, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO under Section 142A for an addition under Section 69C was invalid as Section 69C is excluded from Section 142A. Furthermore, the CIT(A) lacked the power to re-characterize the addition under Section 69B without proper notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs. This circular was also clarified to apply to pending appeals.
The Tribunal consolidated multiple appeals due to common issues involved. The specific decision on the merits of the case is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal consolidated multiple appeals due to common issues involved. The specific decision on the merits of the case is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the revenue from the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income. This decision was based on the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Infrasoft Ltd. case, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the revenue from the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income. This decision was based on the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the Infrasoft Ltd. case, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act on additional income agreed upon through an advance pricing agreement (APA) is illegal. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished full particulars of exempt income and voluntarily computed a disallowance. Therefore, imposing penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee subsequently obtained bank statements explaining the Rs. 9,00,000/-. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider this new evidence and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal consolidated multiple appeals due to common issues. The appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following established judicial precedents. Similarly, subscription fees for cloud services were not considered royalty as they did not involve transfer of rights to use underlying software or infrastructure.
The Tribunal consolidated multiple appeals due to common issues involved. The specific decision on the merits of the case is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act on additional income agreed upon through an advance pricing agreement (APA) is illegal. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that subscription fees for cloud services do not constitute royalty income as they do not involve transfer of rights to use software or underlying infrastructure. The services are provided online with the provider retaining control over the equipment and data centers.