Loading ITAT cases…
458 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentation and that the AO's action was arbitrary and lacked reasonable basis.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence for the claimed costs and expenses. The Tribunal agreed that the property was a vacant plot, rendering claims for improvements and related costs invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that annual lease rent payments attract TDS provisions under Section 194-I. Consequently, the assessee is liable for interest under Section 201(1A) for the default.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable when the entire dividend income has been offered for taxation and no exempt income has been claimed. The fact that interest was capitalized further supported this view.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' and had filed the necessary forms. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove that expenses incurred for rental operations were equal to or less than the maintenance charges received. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' for settlement of tax arrears. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that seized documents belonged to the assessee or had a bearing on the determination of its income. Therefore, the notice under section 153C was invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentation and that the AO's action was arbitrary and lacked reasonable basis.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on account of deemed dividend. It partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections regarding ad-hoc disallowances, restricting them to 5%. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 40A(3) disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271D was void ab initio and bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction regarding the contravention of Section 269SS while framing the assessment order. The penalty was quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal directed that the 'Cause Title' of the order dated 10.11.2022 be corrected. All other contents of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. It upheld the deletion of additions on account of deemed dividend and dismissed grounds related to Section 40A(3) disallowances. Ad-hoc disallowances on transportation and administrative expenses were restricted to 5%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest by imputing surrender under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act, 2020. The settlement under VSV Act does not amount to conceding the tax position, and the genuineness of loans from earlier years should be considered.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a CBDT circular that mandates not filing appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The tax effect in this case was below the stipulated limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. Reliance was placed on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and CIT(A), finding the share transactions to be sham and entered into for tax evasion. The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof for the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest by imputing surrender under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act, 2020. The settlement under VSV Act does not amount to conceding the tax position, and the genuineness of loans from earlier years should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest by imputing surrender under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act, 2020. The settlement under VSV Act does not amount to conceding the tax position, and the genuineness of loans from earlier years should be considered.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide convincing explanations for the premium received on share sales and did not appear to contradict the departmental authorities' findings. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest by imputing surrender under the Vivad se Vishwas (VSV) Act, 2020. The settlement under VSV Act does not amount to conceding the tax position, and the genuineness of loans from earlier years should be considered.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money at any stage. The assessee also failed to appear or provide evidence during the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's submission that a recent Finance Act amendment clarified the taxability of cess, rendering the appeal moot.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payments to the holding company were justified on a cost-to-cost basis for services utilized where the assessee did not have its own infrastructure. The Tribunal also found no interference required with the deletion of the addition related to 26AS discrepancies.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and loading/unloading expenses, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, making it not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while audit objections can be a trigger for revisionary powers, they cannot solely form the basis for issuing a show-cause notice or for the PCIT to examine the record. Independent inquiry and application of mind by the PCIT are essential. Since the PCIT's order was based on audit objections without independent application of mind, it was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order, which was the basis for the impugned orders, was framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263. Since a previous Tribunal order had quashed the Section 263 orders, the assessment order became non-est.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned tax demand had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a cash flow statement showing adequate cash balance to cover the deposits. The addition was considered to be made on surmises and conjectures, as sufficient funds remained even after accounting for previous credits and personal expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was justified.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision for an earlier assessment year where it held that income derived from sub-leasing capacity, packaging services, and resale of raw materials was business income. Consequently, related expenses were allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of purchase parties were proved, thus deleting additions on unexplained purchases. It also quashed assessments made under Section 153C due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements and lack of incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment can be made for notional interest on receivables by treating continued debt balance as an international transaction, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It also noted that the assessee earned a higher margin than comparables, making a separate adjustment for interest unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the capital grants were advance installments held in trust and not revenue. It also found the AO's delay in granting TDS credit deplorable and directed its completion within three months.
The Tribunal held that annuity payments, as part of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) scheme under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (R&R Act), are considered part of the land acquisition award. Section 96 of the R&R Act exempts such awards from income tax.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) approach in computing the adjustment was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the profit from AMP expenses was already captured in the assessee's profit and loss account and offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not required to examine the interest on loans from related parties as it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. Furthermore, the reconciliation of purchase data provided by the assessee was plausible and did not warrant extended inquiry by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It followed its own coordinate bench's decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had upheld the CIT(A)'s orders allowing exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It followed its own coordinate bench's decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had upheld the CIT(A)'s orders allowing exemption.
The Tribunal held that while audit objections can be a trigger for revisionary powers, they cannot solely form the basis for issuing a show-cause notice or for the PCIT to examine the record. Independent inquiry and application of mind by the PCIT are essential. Since the PCIT's order was based on audit objections without independent application of mind, it was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had gone into insolvency, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the insolvency petition. Consequently, a moratorium was imposed, which stays all proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to EPF/ESI, if not deposited on or before the due date, cannot be allowed as a deduction. This is because such amounts are considered income of the employer held in trust and are only deductible upon timely deposit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had gone into insolvency, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the insolvency petition. Consequently, a moratorium was imposed, which stays all proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee charges were not to be added, following its own precedent. For Section 80IC deduction, the issue was remitted to the AO for obtaining necessary breakup of interest income. The ground regarding education cess was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had gone into insolvency, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the insolvency petition. Consequently, a moratorium was imposed, which stays all proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of purchase parties were proved, thus deleting additions on unexplained purchases. It also quashed assessments made under Section 153C due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements and lack of incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that a moratorium declared by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) bars continuation of proceedings against the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.