Loading ITAT cases…
529 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 50C(1) cannot be made as an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) because it deprives the assessee of the statutory right to object to the valuation under Section 50C(2). Such an adjustment is unsustainable.
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) was invoked. Consequently, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by changing the head of income without obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after serving proper notice and providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that a search warrant can be issued to any place where the issuing authority has reason to suspect that documents pertaining to the assessee are kept, even if it's not the assessee's registered or corporate office. The CIT(A)'s conclusion that no search was conducted was found to be devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the right to operate a toll road and collect toll charges, acquired through investment in a BOT project, constitutes an intangible asset. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on this intangible asset.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding violation of natural justice. It noted that the revisional order was passed ex-parte without ensuring the preconditions of a proper opportunity as required by Section 263.
The Tribunal noted that the issues pertaining to the CIT(A)'s order had already been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the current appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as it was filed inadvertently.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill acquired through a slump sale is allowable, following its own decision for the preceding assessment year and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. The CIT(A)'s orders were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill acquired through a slump sale is allowable, following its own decision for the preceding assessment year and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. The CIT(A)'s orders were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved a fair opportunity to present its case, considering the quantum of the addition. Therefore, the ex parte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years without fulfilling the mandatory condition of alleging the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. The AO's reasons did not demonstrate such failure, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenses, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the AO's working was erroneous and that the assessee had not paid excessive interest on borrowings. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) because the assessee did not get an opportunity to present its arguments. A crucial issue regarding the expansion of limited scrutiny was also not addressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the amendment by the Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) also passed the order without giving the assessee a due opportunity to explain their stand. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made due to the assessee's failure to furnish supporting evidence. Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to present his case with evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition for unexplained purchases when no deduction for such purchases was claimed. The gains were attributable to contract work and efficiencies in processing, and the AO's assumptions about FAT & SNF tallying were not supported by objective evidence.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's application. The reason for withdrawal was an inadvertent error in filing the appeal, with the matter already adjudicated in the assessee's favor.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and, with the concession of the Revenue, decided to restore the matter to the AO. The AO is to adjudicate the case afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits, even in ex-parte orders. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 50% on commercial vehicles.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the Income Tax Return. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence for the claimed construction costs. The estimated construction cost by the CIT(A) was deemed reasonable in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as claimed, considering the notional carry forward of losses. The initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(5) need not be the first year of operation, and the CBDT Circular No. 1/2016 provides clarity on this.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the appeal had become infructuous and requested to withdraw it. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that a disallowance under Section 14A does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars for the purpose of Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that advances made for land acquisition were for business purposes, as the assessee was in real estate. It also held that employee's PF contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was not justified as there was no incriminating material found for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the quantum additions were deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition to be erroneous as it was made without considering the substantive assessment. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Based on the parity of facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made on account of Royalty and FTS.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as they were based solely on information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment framed was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. An estimated disallowance under Section 14A, especially when the issue is debatable and no falsity is proven, does not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) is only permissible when there is a variation in income prejudicial to the assessee. Since there was no such variation, the assessment order was time-barred.
The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) is only permissible when there is a variation in income prejudicial to the assessee. Since there was no such variation, the assessment order was time-barred.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case. To render substantial justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT noted the assessee's casual approach but also observed that the assessee had appeared on two occasions and filed some documents. Since the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not 144, indicating some level of compliance, the Tribunal was inclined to delete the penalty.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the provision for internal audit fees was a valid accrual, and the bill was raised in the subsequent year. Similarly, the provision for leave/pension contribution to the deputationist was also considered valid, with payments made in the subsequent year. The Tribunal found no evidence of bogus expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift transactions. The AO could not insist on proving the source of the source, and the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co. was applicable.
The Tribunal held that while Section 14A applies to investments made for strategic control, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The issue was remitted to the AO for factual examination.