Loading ITAT cases…
529 orders · Page 8 of 11
The Tribunal held that belated payments of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF funds are allowable deductions if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. This decision is based on various High Court judgments and amendments to the Finance Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the VSV Scheme and the Revenue had no objection to withdrawing its appeal. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that commission earned from accommodation entries provided through bank accounts in the name of others is taxable in the hands of the assessee as the operator and beneficiary. The reduced commission rate of 0.15% was considered sufficient to account for multiple routings of funds.
The Tribunal held that commission earned from accommodation entries provided through bank accounts in the name of others is taxable in the hands of the assessee as the operator and beneficiary. The reduced commission rate of 0.15% was considered sufficient to account for multiple routings of funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) summarily confirmed the AO's order without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, noting the AO's failure to enforce compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation without proper inquiry and that the assessee had not substantiated claims of revised returns. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was invalid due to a gross non-application of mind by the AO, as evidenced by the incorrect mention of a different company's name in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the entire assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A/Section 80GGA. The denial of deduction was considered a computational error, and the AO was directed to grant the benefit.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is legally invalid. Consequently, any subsequent proceedings, including those under Section 263, initiated based on such an invalid order are also invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty related to the transfer pricing adjustment. It found that the assessee had disclosed transactions and acted in good faith, and the issue was debatable, thus not warranting penalty.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were validly invoked as the assessee had obtained two PANs and not filed a return for the second PAN. The cash deposits were treated as unrecorded turnover, and a net profit rate of 1.1% was applied to these deposits.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for notional rent, following a previous decision where similar additions were deleted due to lack of reasonable working for the annual letting value. The addition for unexplained cash was also deleted as the assessee provided evidence of an advance sale agreement and its cancellation, and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding that the disallowance of other expenditures under Section 14A was correctly applied. The disallowance of proportionate interest on advances was also sustained, following previous orders for identical facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee operated on the principle of mutuality. The receipts were considered subscription fees for the pursuit of professional excellence among member firms, not consideration for specific services.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that TDS was not required due to the involvement of a government department (DTCP) and a subsequent clarification from DTCP. Therefore, there was no contumacious conduct to warrant a penalty under Section 271C.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that TDS was not required due to the nature of the payment and directions from the government authority. The penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable as there was no contumacious conduct by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that TDS was not required due to the involvement of a government department (DTCP) and a subsequent clarification from DTCP. Therefore, there was no contumacious conduct to warrant a penalty under Section 271C.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether software sale receipts constitute royalty has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. Therefore, the addition made on account of royalty is deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if there is no exempt income earned by the assessee. Since the assessee had no exempt income in the relevant assessment year, the disallowance made under Section 14A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not indicate that additional evidence was admitted. The assessee's counsel certified that only documents submitted to the AO were presented to the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to deal with the assessee's documents, justifying the CIT(A)'s reversal of findings.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of bogus purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verifying documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for unexplained cash, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be meticulous and well-supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not justified as the share capital was from disclosed investors. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation method under Section 56(2)(viib) without a specific enabling provision, especially when using a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for a startup.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not justified as the share capital was from disclosed investors. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation method under Section 56(2)(viib) without a specific enabling provision, especially when using a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for a startup.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not justified as the share capital was from disclosed investors. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation method under Section 56(2)(viib) without a specific enabling provision, especially when using a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for a startup.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of bogus purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verifying documents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained cash, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of bogus purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verifying documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for unexplained cash, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be meticulous and well-supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss on funds received from the Head Office, which were used for business purposes and repaid in the same currency, is allowable as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal followed the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). It found no concealment of income to warrant penalty proceedings, especially considering the quantum involved and the assessee's actions post-disallowance.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperation, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as the assessee should have first appealed to the CIT(A) before approaching the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to refile if the tax effect was higher.
The Tribunal found that the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee required verification. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside and the issue was restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the corresponding quantum additions on which the penalties were based had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties.
The Tribunal held that since the corresponding quantum additions on which the penalties were based had already been deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties.
The Tribunal held that since the corresponding quantum additions on which the penalties were based had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties.
The Tribunal held that since the corresponding quantum additions on which the penalties were based had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalties could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalties.
The Tribunal found that the delay was not inordinate and the explanation provided by the assessee was not unbelievable. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal without condoning the delay was considered unjust.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's inaction warranted dismissal, it was appropriate to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, considering the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified as the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was also held to be not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not discharged the primary onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the grounds regarding foreign travel expenses were not pressed.
The Tribunal held that for a concluded assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of loan repayment and TDS on interest.
The Tribunal held that for a concluded assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of loan repayment and TDS on interest.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the factual matrix of the impugned assessment year was the same as in earlier years, and the issue of AMP expenses being an international transaction was pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also deleted disallowances related to relocation expenses and gifts, but dismissed the claim for deduction of education cess.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs Noble And Hewitt (I) P. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in light of this decision and granted the assessee an opportunity to be heard.