Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 3 of 12
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were clarified to be prospective.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal after noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the designated authority had issued Form 3. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, indicating a full and final settlement. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied was invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state the grounds for penalty, i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and consequently dismissed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute had been resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The designated authority had issued Form 5, confirming the settlement.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied was invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state the grounds for penalty, i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present their case.
The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty because the addition on which it was based had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no subsisting addition to sustain the penalty.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions, upon which the penalty was levied, had been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive independently. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on the crane should be allowed as its existence and use in business were confirmed by the AO's own inspector in a subsequent year. The disallowance of employees' PF contribution was also deleted as it was remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present their case.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when income is assessed on an estimated basis, especially when the estimation of profit on alleged non-genuine purchases is ad-hoc. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law because it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This lack of specificity indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that once completion certificates were verified on a test check basis during remand proceedings and found to be in order, the deduction under Section 80IB(10) should be allowed. The earlier disallowance based on non-production during assessment was deemed not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that provisions for warranty are generally allowable if based on past experience and a reliable estimate, citing Supreme Court judgments. Previous ITAT decisions for the assessee and similar cases allowed such provisions.
The Tribunal held that payments to retainer and consultant doctors fall under Section 194J, not Section 192, of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for not deducting TDS under Section 192.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that the development fund collected by the institution partakes the character of revenue receipt and not corpus donation. The quantum eligible under Section 11(1)(a) should be determined based on the income derived from property held under trust, not exceeding 15% of such income.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) correctly followed jurisdictional High Court decisions in deleting the additions.
The Tribunal held that the income from software sales and related support services is not taxable as royalty or FTS under the India-Singapore tax treaty. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling for a prior assessment year concerning the same assessee.
The Tribunal held that imparting skill development training is akin to providing education and falls under the charitable objects of general public utility. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for registration under section 12AA.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. It noted that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT, indicating the issue was debatable and the assessee acted in good faith.
The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal after the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Hong Kong entity was a separate legal entity, subject to Hong Kong laws, and its transactions with the assessee were at arm's length. The Revenue failed to prove that the control and management were wholly in India or that the transactions were sham.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue's counsel could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty imposed on enhancements made in those non-existent proceedings lacked foundation and was unsustainable in law. Therefore, the penalties were rendered invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity before passing an order.
The Tribunal held that payments to retainer and consultant doctors fall under Section 194J, not Section 192, of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for not deducting TDS under Section 192.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding its investments yielding exempt income, thus disallowance of interest under the second limb of Rule 8D was not justified. The Tribunal also directed re-computation of the disallowance under the third limb, restricting it to the actual non-taxable investment.
The Tribunal held that payments to retainer and consultant doctors fall under Section 194J, not Section 192, of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for not deducting TDS under Section 192.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics, a substantial expansion of an industrial unit entitles the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC again. Therefore, the assessee's claim for 100% deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct was irresponsible and non-cooperative, as they failed to substantiate the delay or rectify defects. The appeals were dismissed in limine due to being filed beyond the limitation period and for not depositing the appeal fees correctly.