Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal based on incorrect facts regarding the nature of services provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, as evidenced by Form 5. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The ITAT found that the assessee's counsel could not provide clarity on the status of the substantive addition in the hands of Anurag Dalmia for the present assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal after noting that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The designated authority had issued Form 5, confirming the settlement.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal after noting that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the designated authority had issued Form 5. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to address issues with visible attachments.
The Tribunal held that the mere non-acceptance of a claim by revenue authorities does not automatically lead to a penalty, especially when details were provided. Following the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the levy of penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative agreed and did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was decided ex parte due to non-service of notices. The assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's contention that no such cash deposit was made. The AO is directed to confront the assessee with any available information before passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, rendering the assessment order void. The defect was substantive and not curable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of share warrant money constitutes extinguishment of rights, which falls within the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the short-term capital loss is allowable.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given to the person in whose hands the income is assessable, which is Emaar MGF Land Ltd. The assessee is not entitled to claim the TDS credit directly.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to several defects, including the lack of valid reasons for the Assessing Officer to believe income had escaped assessment and the issuance of the notice under section 148 prior to the necessary sanction. Consequently, the reassessment order and additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 41 is not applicable for disallowing purchases from earlier years on the grounds of genuineness. However, since the AO had raised doubts about the liabilities, the issue was remitted back for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that since no notice under Section 271B read with Section 274 was issued to the assessee, the penalty order was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for a previous assessment year and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 for legal and professional expenses due to lack of evidence. It confirmed the capitalization of Rs. 6,05,470 but directed that depreciation be allowed. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was also upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the AO who framed the assessment did not issue the mandatory notice under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the consequential additions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of earnings and the need for verification, but found remanding the matter to the AO for verification from the UK to be cumbersome given the low tax revenue involved. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a specific amount for each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee neither appeared nor provided evidence to controvert the lower authorities' findings, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of earnings needed verification, the estimated expenses were high. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to specific amounts for each assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to reasonable cause. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to reasonable cause. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard at both the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) levels. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the differences were on account of VAT amounts, which were accounted for separately. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no cogent submission from the Revenue to contradict the factual finding.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance on interest paid on earning interest income, finding no nexus between the income and expenditure. The disallowance on interest paid to the firm was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's contention of a running account.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made on an ad hoc basis without considering the assessee's right to attribute interest-free funds. It also noted that the Revenue accepted sales to related parties without disallowance, questioning the basis for doubting the debtors' genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not on account of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had claimed the expenditure in good faith, believing it to be revenue in nature.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a Form No. 5 for full and final settlement of taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit. This renders the AO's jurisdiction to frame the assessment invalid and void. Consequently, the assessment order and consequential additions are quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not properly admitting and examining the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not properly admitting and examining the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not refute this claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It agreed that since the assessment order was set aside, the penalty levied based on it would not survive.
The Tribunal held that the income in question was received after the filing of the original return and was offered for taxation during assessment. Therefore, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables do not automatically constitute a separate international transaction, especially when the impact on working capital and pricing has already been factored in. Any further adjustment based solely on outstanding receivables would distort the picture and re-characterize the transaction.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed in the name of a deceased person, without impleading the legal representative, is invalid and void ab initio. Proceedings should have been taken against the legal representative as per Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. This was because the reopening was based on issues related to one bank account, but the addition was made on another bank account not covered by the reasons recorded for reopening.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere given the lack of explanation or proof of payment from the assessee despite multiple opportunities. The appeal was decided on merits after the assessee failed to appear.