Loading ITAT cases…
504 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the structures were temporary, all necessary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the structures were temporary, all necessary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach erroneous for not properly examining the fund flow and not calling for a remand report. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, dismissed the revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to commission income at 0.5% on accommodation entries given to parties outside the group.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 20% was not sustainable. It noted that the assessee provided evidence showing all payments were made through banking channels after TDS deduction and that the higher expenditure was due to full year operations.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not a prima facie adjustment and lacked legal reasoning. Therefore, the adjustment could not have been made at the 143(1) stage.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, dismissed the revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to commission income at 0.5% on accommodation entries given to parties outside the group.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including notarized confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements, to substantiate the genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal also noted that the shareholding existed prior to the assessment year and had been accepted in previous years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had been sold and had no staff or assets. No evidence was presented to counter the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the unsecured loan.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee had only a negligible amount of exempt income, the disallowance was restricted to that amount.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee had only a negligible amount of exempt income, the disallowance was restricted to that amount.
The Tribunal found a clear breach of natural justice as only one opportunity was given, and the CIT(E)'s order was cryptic. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's return of income was subject to Section 92E, the extended due date under Section 139(1) was November 30, 2017. As the bonus payment was made before this date, it could not be disallowed under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes and not disputed as bogus. Since the assessee had already paid more tax in the earlier year and the claim was revenue neutral, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits, even in an ex-parte order, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases involving the same search and seizure operation. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the validity of share capital and other transactions, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because it was filed by the Directors of the company after the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had passed a hasty order without properly appreciating the documents submitted. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT for a fresh consideration after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be well-reasoned and upheld the addition. The assessee did not provide any evidence to contradict the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal agreed with the submissions of both parties that the issues concerning prior period expenses and gift money were decided in favour of the assessee by co-ordinate benches. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that a fresh assessment order was passed accepting the returned income without additions or demand. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee had only a negligible amount of exempt income, the disallowance was restricted to that amount.
The Tribunal held that the segmental accounting prepared by the assessee should be accepted unless the Assessing Officer can rebut it with cogent reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the accounts were duly audited and there is no rule mandating certification by a CA for segmental accounts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that an order passed against a non-existent entity is invalid. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee had only a negligible amount of exempt income, the disallowance was restricted to that amount.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay satisfactory and condoned it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to present evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the obligation under Section 194IA is qua each transferee and not the aggregate consideration of the property. Since the assessee's individual contribution was below the threshold, she was not liable for TDS deduction.
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 Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT. The High Court held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte orders, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases involving the same search and seizure operation. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the validity of share capital and other transactions, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases involving the same search and seizure operation. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the validity of share capital and other transactions, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 days and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was directed to submit the penalty and assessment orders within 7 days.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of trading results by the AO was erroneous. The assessee's trading patterns were consistent, and prior/subsequent assessment years with similar facts accepted the declared results. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment was deleted by the TPO pursuant to a rectified direction from the DRP. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to revive it if the final order of the AO deviated from the deleted adjustment.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the contract notes submitted by the assessee. If the contract notes are available and satisfy the conditions, the speculative loss should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for such belated payments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) failed to provide adequate justification for treating 50% of the advertisement expenses as capital in nature. The Tribunal found no tangible explanation for the creation of a corporeal asset and thus ruled these expenses were revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that notional interest on receivables should not be benchmarked if interest is not charged by either party. It also ruled that the addition under Section 56(2)(viia) was not in accordance with Rule 11UA and directed the allowance of TDS and advance tax credit for amalgamated entities.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for such belated payments.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for such belated payments.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries to prove the purchases were bogus and that the corresponding sales were accepted. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in similar cases where additions for bogus purchases were deleted.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for such belated payments.
The Tribunal held that the payments received for licensing software, which granted only a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the copyrighted product, do not constitute royalty. This is based on the distinction between acquiring a copyright right and a copyrighted article.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for such belated payments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding bogus purchases, finding that the assessee failed to establish the identity of the supplier and the genuineness of the transactions. However, the issue of reconciliation of finished goods was remanded to the AO for further examination.