Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 2 of 13
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a fair opportunity of hearing before the additions were made. The matter was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider earlier orders and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider earlier orders and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider earlier orders and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was granted because the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form No. 5.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of brought forward business loss and allow it if crystallized in the prior year. The disallowance of Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESI was also directed to be allowed as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider earlier orders and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the case of co-owners, holding that the land sold was agricultural land and not subject to capital gains tax. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty because the underlying addition itself had been deleted, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any error in this finding.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights, as it specifically applies to the transfer of land or building. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the authorities below.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was plausible and that the delay of about 30 days was not considerable. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 5,15,000/- for arbitration work was justified as the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not deducting TDS. However, a portion of the consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 25,78,263/- was allowed as business expenditure, as the assessee was actively pursuing arbitration proceedings which resulted in a significant award.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized. The Revenue had no objection to this course of action.
The Tribunal found contradictory findings in the Assessing Officer's order regarding the disallowance. It was unclear whether the disallowance was made under Section 36(1)(iii) or Section 14A of the Act.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis or based on deeming provisions like Section 50C, as these do not necessarily indicate concealment of income. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement under the scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal is with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale/supply of software is not taxable as royalty. This decision was based on precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that income from services rendered, which constitutes the assessee's main business, is business income under Article 7 of the DTAA. Since there was no specific FTS article and no Permanent Establishment in India, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23B) as the certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission was valid for the relevant period. The denial of exemption due to the duration of the certificate was considered a technical violation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without considering the assessee's cash withdrawals, which were higher than the deposits. Following a coordinate bench's precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate business income at 8% of total deposits.
The Tribunal is deciding on the maintainability of the appeal. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the assessee company has been struck off.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Revenue had not demonstrated any defect in the assessee's detailed submissions regarding the advertisement expenses. The issue was considered covered by previous ITAT decisions in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons to believe for initiating reassessment were not based on tangible material and constituted a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO failed to independently apply his mind to the information received.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the quantum additions, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. However, it set aside the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c), stating that mere rejection of a claim without further evidence does not automatically warrant penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the quantum additions, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. However, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c), stating that mere rejection of a claim does not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons to believe for initiating reassessment were not based on tangible material and constituted 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO failed to independently apply his mind to the information received.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the amount in question was part of the consideration for development rights, not undisclosed income. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 34,242/- and an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 9,02,822/-, while upholding a partial disallowance of foreign travel expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the amount in question was part of the consideration for development rights, not undisclosed income. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 34,242/- and an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 9,02,822/-, while upholding a partial disallowance of foreign travel expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including a signed audit report, financial statements, VAT/Service Tax returns, and bank statements, during remand proceedings. The additions on account of share capital were also contested due to the close-knit nature of the company and the introduction of funds through banking channels from respectable individuals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 68 applies only to credits received in the current financial year. Since the share capital and premium were received in earlier years and not during the assessment year in question, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, similar to a prior ruling on an identical case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, similar to a prior ruling on an identical case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that payments for software sales to Indian distributors do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-USA DTAA, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO's premise that the assessee had not filed its return was factually incorrect. Furthermore, the AO failed to supply the reasons for reopening to the assessee, which is a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as per Sections 251 & 252 of the Income-tax Act and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits.
The Tribunal found that certain parts of the CIT(A)'s order were unclear and the appeal was decided ex-parte. Therefore, the issue regarding the addition of EDC/IDC was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, similar to a prior ruling on an identical case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, all proceedings in any court of law or tribunal cannot continue. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the present proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to pass a fresh order on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This appeal is decided in accordance with these directions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue and taken a plausible view based on the submitted evidence. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, making the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 bad in law.
The Tribunal held that judicial discipline requires following its own coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years. Accordingly, it directed the exclusion of specific comparable companies and allowed the grounds related to working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid as the specified domestic transactions did not exceed the Rs. 5 crore threshold. Consequently, the assessment order, passed beyond the normal limitation period, was quashed.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be initiated without proper application of mind and based on incorrect facts, similar to a prior ruling on an identical case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed bad in law.