Loading ITAT cases…
504 orders · Page 6 of 11
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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 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 restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to hear the assessee and consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
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 disallowances made under Section 143(1) for debatable issues like employee PF/ESI contributions and interest on late TDS are not warranted. The amendments regarding employee contributions are prospective, and payments made before the ITR filing due date are allowable.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain claims not made via a revised return, unlike the Assessing Officer. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits.
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 noted that a moratorium declared by the NCLT prohibits the continuation of proceedings in any court or tribunal. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, agreeing that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings and the High Court's confirmation that the assessee did not have a PE in India. Therefore, no part of its global profit was taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income and that investments not yielding exempt income should not be considered for calculating the disallowance. The assessee's claim for a lower disallowance was accepted.
The Tribunal declined to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the lack of a reasonable explanation. The assessee was also noted to be a habitual defaulter, disregarding notices from revenue authorities.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, noting that the AO's position on facts in the subsequent year was consistent with the assessee's claims. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation in the earlier years was reversed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked crucial facts in the sale deed, which did not mention any encumbrance or encroachment. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that a moratorium declared by the NCLT prohibits the continuation of proceedings in any court or tribunal. Therefore, continuing the present appeals would serve no useful purpose.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, noting that the AO's position on facts in the subsequent year was consistent with the assessee's claims. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation in the earlier years was reversed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income and that investments not yielding exempt income should not be considered for calculating the disallowance. The assessee's claim for a lower disallowance was accepted.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no contrary material to rebut the findings on facts. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the assessment under Section 153A. The assessment must be based on seized material, and the pendency of an appeal against a High Court judgment does not negate its applicability.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not conduct any inquiry to verify the veracity of the affidavits filed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after conducting the requisite inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify it, which violates principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the assessee failed to remove defects regarding short payment of court fees, despite being given opportunities. The grounds raised by the assessee were therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation and without conducting an inquiry into the agricultural activity. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition for delayed deposit of employee's ESI and PF contributions was not justified as the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. The issue regarding another addition of Rs. 1,50,463 was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed on 14.11.2017 was beyond jurisdiction and void ab initio because the pending assessment proceedings abated in view of the second proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the search conducted on 23.09.2016. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on this void assessment order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the reasoning that civil structures are integral to the composite windmill structure and cannot be viewed in isolation. The Revenue failed to present any contrary binding decisions.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO had applied his mind to the issue of sale consideration being below the circle rate and had obtained a satisfactory explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that amendments regarding delayed deposit of employee contributions are not applicable to assessment years prior to 2021-22. It relied on High Court judgments stating that delayed deposits, if made before the return filing due date, are allowable as deductions.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the NFAC and restored the appeals to the NFAC's file. The NFAC was directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing proper notice and an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) based solely on the auditor's comments in the tax audit report, without proper opportunity to the assessee or meeting the conditions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) or (iv), was incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of club expenses allowability is debatable and requires proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the credits were allegedly received. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue notice under Section 143(2) and that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment contained incorrect facts pertaining to a different party. This indicated a complete non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Era Infrastructure India Limited. The AO was directed to delete the addition.
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 held that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all dues, including statutory dues, are extinguished if not part of the plan. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee a chance to represent their case on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the orders were without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in making the additions. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the additions were made without proper verification and consideration of the assessee's status as a registered society.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the orders were without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash credits as required under Section 68. The evidence collected, including the Patwari's statement that the land was sold in 2001, substantiated the AO's addition.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the expenditure is allowable. The recent amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, also clarify this position.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after proper service of notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the orders were without jurisdiction and void ab initio.