Loading ITAT cases…
504 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) derived from it could not survive. Therefore, both these orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest and late registration charges related to land acquisition are capital in nature and should be capitalized. However, advertisement, brokerage, and commission expenses incurred after the business operations commenced are revenue expenses and should be allowed as deductions.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring a capital asset forms part of its cost of acquisition, and is deductible under Section 48. It also held that Section 54 exemption is allowable even if the residential house is constructed on agricultural land with appurtenant land.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ad-hoc enhancement without material evidence was not sustainable. Relying on CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal ruled against accepting surrenders without corroborating evidence. The appeals were decided based on these findings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity and assistance to the assessee, considering her circumstances as a widow with limited information.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. It held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income, and similarly, notional interest on interest-free advances to a trust was not disallowed in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the composite lease should be treated as 'Income from Other Sources' and allowed deductions under Section 57 of the Act. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue of non-granting of tax deducted at source.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own decision for the preceding assessment year. It directed the AO to recompute the disallowance by excluding depreciation and finance costs, and by applying a reduced rate of 1% to employee benefit and other expenses.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263. The applicability of the amended section 115BBE to surrendered income from a prior survey was a debatable issue, and the Assessing Officer's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being imposed. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition. The assessee failed to provide evidence for the claimed commission rate of 0.4% to 0.5%, and the AO's application of a 2% rate was not interfered with.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made an addition of a different item of income than what the assessment was reopened for, which is against settled legal principles. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the issues were covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by not considering the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and by enhancing the income without issuing a show cause notice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a reasoned order considering the evidence and submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce the lenders for examination. The assessee was also permitted to furnish other corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and carefully examining the documentary evidence, noted that all three impugned amounts were received by the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year 2015-16 through banking channels. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence showing that the amounts were due from the respective parties at the beginning of the financial period and were received back during the financial period 2014-15 (AY 2015-16). Specifically, the Tribunal observed that a brought-forward amount of Rs. 8,34,100/- was paid during the relevant financial period, making the addition of Rs. 7 lakhs from ANS Insurance incorrect. Regarding RMV Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the assessee had advanced Rs. 35 lakhs on March 22, 2012, and received it back in installments on March 21, 23, and 28, 2015. Similarly, for Bhagirathi Infotech Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had advanced Rs. 10 lakhs on July 29, 2012, and received it back on March 25, 2015. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had proved the creditworthiness and genuineness of these transactions, as they were carried out through banking channels and represented repayments of earlier advances. In the absence of any contrary material from the Revenue, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal related to the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not conduct sufficient inquiry into the assessee's claim regarding the source of funds from the sale of agricultural land and the advance received back. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE or installation PE in India, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE or installation PE in India, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was bad in law as it was a stereotyped notice without specifying the exact limb of the section for which the penalty was initiated. Such an omnibus notice suffers from vagueness and violates principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate claims regarding the defectiveness of the penalty notice and did not provide supporting material to challenge the penalty. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) sustaining the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal found that the source of cash deposits was claimed as gifts, but not substantiated. The CIT(A) had factually considered the difference in receipts and restricted the addition. The Tribunal found no reason to modify the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was tangible material and proper procedure was followed. The Tribunal also upheld the addition made by the AO, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits and had a history of declaring business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of any exempt income. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court and Apex Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee was not properly represented and the CIT(A) order was exparte, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, with a declaration accepted for full and final settlement of tax arrears.
The Tribunal held that since the additions/disallowances in the quantum proceedings were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020, the penalty imposed does not survive. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide complete and commensurate financial information from the share applicant to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to place any material to rebut the findings of the authorities below regarding the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax return. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had made the necessary inquiries and considered the assessee's replies and documentation.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee were not managerial in nature and therefore did not constitute FTS under the India-Germany DTAA. Mere provision of support services does not qualify as managerial services.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of TDS payable was unsustainable. It reasoned that TDS is a statutory liability and the amount deducted is considered paid on behalf of the recipient, especially when the assessee follows the cash system of accounting and has deposited the TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited and the Delhi High Court decision in DIT vs. Intrasoft Ltd. Therefore, the grounds related to the classification of software sale as royalty were allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Based on the assessee's letter, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is estopped from pursuing the appeal due to the overriding provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to revive it later.
The Tribunal held that the balance additional depreciation, which was restricted in the previous year due to the machinery being used for less than 180 days, is allowable in the succeeding year. This is to give full benefit of the incentive provided for industrialization.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee were not managerial in nature and therefore did not constitute FTS under the India-Germany DTAA. Mere provision of support services does not qualify as managerial services.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, following the Delhi High Court's decision that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is received. The recent amendment to Section 14A was held to be not retrospective.