Loading ITAT cases…
458 orders · Page 9 of 10
The tribunal noted the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The CIT(A)'s order thus stands confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been issued Form No. 5 under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for the dispute. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, as this indirectly achieves the same result as withdrawal, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable. It relied on co-ordinate bench decisions which held that TDS was not required on payments of EDC/IDC to government departments or authorities, especially when there was a bonafide belief and a clarification from the relevant government department.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, especially in assessments under Section 144/147, renders the assessment order bad in law. This is a mandatory requirement and not a procedural irregularity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of administrative expenses was arbitrary, especially since the assessee had justified the expenses. The Tribunal deleted this disallowance.
The Tribunal held that if payments for rent and maintenance charges are made to distinct entities and for distinct services, TDS on maintenance charges should be deducted at 2% under Section 194C, not 10% under Section 194I. The common area maintenance charges were not part of the actual rent paid to the owner.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer and that the reasons recorded were not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations for the deposits, and the AO had not independently verified them.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals before the Tribunal should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. It found that the matching details in the draft deed and original sale deed, including a cheque payment, provided sufficient material evidence to disregard the CIT(A)'s reasoning about the draft deed being undated and unsigned.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed without proper service of notice, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case and for the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed and not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit specified by CBDT circulars. The Revenue was given liberty to seek recall if the appeal was found to be outside the circulars.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Principal CIT to reconsider the issue afresh after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision for an earlier assessment year, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the nature of transactions and the utilization of funds for business purposes.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss incriminating material found during the search and failed to address the assessee's plea regarding the source of deposits and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and explanations.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss incriminating material found during the search and failed to address the assessee's plea regarding the source of deposits and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss incriminating material found during the search and failed to address the assessee's plea regarding the source of deposits and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss incriminating material found during the search and failed to address the assessee's plea regarding the source of deposits and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not discuss incriminating material found during the search and failed to address the assessee's plea regarding the source of deposits and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of penalty notice validity to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. If the relevant limb in the penalty notice was not specified, the penalty would be liable for deletion.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the recipient had declared the income and paid tax. If so, the matter should be decided in light of the law and precedents like Hindustan Coca Cola.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as no legal heirs were brought on record despite a prior direction. However, liberty was granted to the legal heirs to approach the tribunal for restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest expenditure was allowable as it related to the assessee's real estate business. It also agreed that security premium reserve is not part of accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee's explanations were found to be self-serving and lacked cogency, and no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the source of the funds.
The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act leads to the deemed withdrawal of pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate order was passed ex-parte without proper service of notice and without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with all mandatory conditions of the PMGKY Scheme, including payment of taxes and making the required deposit. Therefore, the cash deposits could not be taxed as income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is an anti-abuse provision and not applicable to transactions between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. The Tribunal also found the assessee's valuation of shares based on land value to be acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and CIT(A) under Section 43B and Section 40A(7) were erroneous as they relied on figures from the tax audit report that did not accurately reflect the actual debits to the profit and loss account and the applicable law. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly accounted for the liabilities.
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 accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding pension scheme contributions, following High Court and Tribunal precedents. It dismissed the ground concerning consumables as not pressed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding catalyst purchases, finding them to be revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that while the commission percentage was not disputed, there was no evidence that the commission was actually paid to the assessee. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the FDR interest income accrued in a later assessment year when the assessee acquired the right to receive it, and taxing it in the current year would amount to double taxation. Credit for TDS is to be given for the year in which the income is assessable.
The Tribunal held that the search warrant was validly issued and served on the assessee's director at a location where the issuing authority had reason to suspect the assessee's documents were kept. The CIT(A)'s annulment of the assessment based on the address was incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding pension scheme contributions, following High Court and Tribunal precedents. It dismissed the ground concerning consumables as not pressed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding catalyst purchases, finding them to be revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by not inquiring into the nature of the surrendered income and failing to consider the applicability of Section 115BBE for unexplained income. The AO's order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) mentioned sending notices but the assessee disputed receiving them. To serve the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the AO had tangible material. It further held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share application money, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditors, thus upholding the additions.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay of 31 days in depositing the sale consideration into the capital gains account does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction under Section 54, especially when the entire amount was invested in constructing the new house within the prescribed period. Section 54(2) is procedural, while Section 54(1) is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the training provided was commercial in nature and not incidental to the trust's charitable objects. The terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) indicated that the training was customized for the hotels and aimed at enhancing their revenue, thus not fulfilling the trust's objectives.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a miscellaneous application for rectification. Since the present appeal would not survive due to the pending rectification, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the income was assessed at NIL and no set-off of losses was claimed in the year under consideration, despite the belated return.
The Tribunal found the Pr. CIT's order contradictory, as it computed additions while simultaneously directing the AO to conduct further inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Pr. CIT for fresh consideration.