Loading ITAT cases…
152 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it directed the deletion of the addition for purchases as the assessee provided documentary evidence, and the Revenue failed to prove the non-existence or unreliability of the vendor.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment as it was based on information suggesting escapement of income. However, for the additions on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided supporting documents and there was no material to suggest the vendor was not in existence or the evidence was unreliable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment, additions under section 153A are not sustainable if no incriminating material is found during the search. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the significant delay and the lack of a cogent reason for the delay. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-appearance and the death of the assessee without identification of legal heirs.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271B. The assessee's contention of having a reasonable cause for not getting the audit done was not accepted, as he failed to provide supporting evidence like the agreement with Mother Dairy.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the MAP resolution.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. The additions on account of management fees were deleted, and the allocation of common expenses was directed to be done as per the ITAT's earlier directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowance under Section 80IC is unsustainable without the AO pointing out specific defects in the assessee's claim, especially when the assessee had furnished complete details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowance under Section 80IC is unsustainable without the AO pointing out specific defects in the assessee's claim, especially when the assessee had furnished complete details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowance under Section 80IC is unsustainable without the AO pointing out specific defects in the assessee's claim, especially when the assessee had furnished complete details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that disallowance under Section 80IC is unsustainable without the AO pointing out specific defects in the assessee's claim, especially when the assessee had furnished complete details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal on merits without receiving the remand report and without giving the assessee an opportunity to controvert the ex parte evidence. This prejudiced the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was on repairing an old structure to strengthen it, and it did not result in an increase in capacity. Therefore, the expenditure was not in the capital field and should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50 Lakhs and clarified that this would apply to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as per the resolution reached under the MAP. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained in light of the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in quantum proceedings, which found the assessee eligible for exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the AO's action of denying exemption and levying penalty was not supported.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that upon approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, no further proceedings can be continued for such claims.
The Tribunal held that upon the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not part of the plan, including those of the revenue, stand extinguished. Therefore, no proceedings can be continued for such claims.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously remanded matters for other assessment years due to the AO not discussing incriminating material and not addressing the assessee's explanations. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remanded the current appeal to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on statements recorded behind the assessee's back without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. To subserve the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s analogy of restricting the addition to 20% was not applicable to a seller. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company has been admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the NCLT. The Resolution Professional requested an adjournment due to receiving the hearing notice late and the company's address change.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments as not pressed, as they were covered under APA. The issue of Section 10AA deduction was remitted to the AO for verification of claimed corrections. The ground regarding incorrect income was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found a serious procedural error in the CIT(A)'s order and decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay condonation, bring the legal heir on record, and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly verify the assessee's claim of withdrawing the amount from another bank account and redepositing it. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E, introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, was prospective. Since the defaults occurred prior to this date, the notices issued under Section 200A for computing this fee were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the ESOP expenditure is an allowable deduction, especially since the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. It was also noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided this issue in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had overlooked the assessee's ground regarding the IBC moratorium. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the CIT(A)'s actions must comply with the IBC.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeal could not be pursued. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to revive it once the moratorium period ends or the company is revived.