Loading ITAT cases…
152 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the settlement amount should be bifurcated. The portion attributable to the eligible shares (based on completed years of service) should be treated as capital gains under Section 48, while the remaining amount should be taxed as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3)(iii).
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are only sustainable if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found and the assessment was already completed, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E, introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, is prospective. Since the defaults occurred prior to this date and there were no machinery provisions to charge the fee under Section 200A for periods before the amendment, the levy was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that the seized documents 'belonged to' the assessee, as opposed to merely 'relating to' or 'referring to' the assessee. The satisfaction note did not demonstrate that the documents did not belong to the searched entity.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E, introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, is prospective. Since the defaults occurred prior to this date and there were no machinery provisions to charge the fee under Section 200A for periods before the amendment, the levy was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that interest paid by the assessee company in connection with the acquisition of fixed assets is an allowable deduction. The fact that the properties were allotted to directors for residential purposes and perquisites were taxed supported this.
The Tribunal held that since the source of the loan amounts was proved and accepted as gifts from the assessee, and the interest paid was taxable in the hands of the recipients, there was no reason to disallow the interest in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had utilized an amount equivalent to the capital gains for the acquisition of the new house. Therefore, the assessee should be permitted to avail the benefit allowable under Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial burden under Section 68 by providing details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without issuing a mandatory show cause notice and in disallowing business expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions giving rise to the penalty were reversed by a co-ordinate bench, the basis for imposing the penalty no longer existed. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a reply online, which was not considered by the Pr.CIT. Therefore, the revisional order was set aside due to a lack of proper opportunity and consideration of the assessee's response.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the assessee had failed to attend before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. Since the assessee could not provide any material to controvert the findings, the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee paid the service tax and excise duty to the government and could not recover these amounts from its clients. Therefore, the deduction was allowable as a business expenditure under commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal followed the ratio of various High Court judgments on this matter.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard and did not decide the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) is required to adjudicate issues on merit and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the proceedings were initiated. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the Tribunal found the notice to be bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of debenture interest, following its own precedents for earlier years where the business was considered set up. The issue of Section 244A interest was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act applies only to undertakings engaged in the generation and distribution of power. Therefore, the assessee, not being in such a business, is not entitled to the benefit of Section 32(1)(iii) for writing off assets.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly restricted the addition to Rs. 11,76,379/- as this was the only amount of interest income that was not accounted for and was later offered by the assessee. Most other credits were explained as salary, interbank transfers, or loan repayments.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not find the purchases to be entirely bogus and allowed a net profit rate disallowance, the assessee's conduct was not contumacious to warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of indirect expense disallowance back to the AO for fresh consideration. It allowed the deduction under Section 80IC based on previous year's orders and also remanded the issue of excluding certain sales from the 80IC calculation for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that rejecting additional evidence solely on grounds of delay without considering its merits is unsustainable. The relevancy of the evidence and a plausible explanation for its late submission are the primary criteria for admission.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the Revenue to restore it if the dispute is not settled under the scheme. The assessee had no objection to this condition.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee's claim of no expenditure related to exempt income was unsustainable. The alternate ground regarding excess interest-free funds was also rejected as the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the addition in the quantum appeal was deleted, the penalty levied with respect to that addition does not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief from the demand raised due to the incorrect TAN. The tribunal found the mistake to be bona fide and based on equitable grounds.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and fall under Section 194C, attracting a 2% TDS rate, not Section 194I (rent). Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at the lower rate.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AA could not be sustained as the error in the transfer pricing report was an inadvertent human error, especially since no adjustment was proposed by the TPO and there was no revenue loss.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had ignored the assessee's submissions and relevant documents. It was inclined to remit the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was not sustainable. The AO had considered the assessee's explanation and dropped the penalty proceedings after due application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable. The AO had considered the assessee's explanation and dropped the penalty proceedings after due application of mind, and this decision was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the additions were either tax-neutral under the Tonnage Tax Scheme or arose from bonafide errors and disclosures, not furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company has gone into insolvency and a moratorium has been imposed. Since no one appeared for the assessee and no material was placed on record to prosecute the appeal, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise all legal arguments.
The Tribunal held that the investment was made out of interest-free funds and the assessee's suo motu disallowance was sufficient. Therefore, no further disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench's decision, held that donation from one charitable trust to another is not prohibited and that the cancellation of registration by the DIT(E) was not sustainable. Consequently, the AO's disallowance and the CIT(A)'s findings were not faulted.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The Tribunal also stated that the principle of estoppel is not applicable in income tax proceedings, and the appeal should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Considering the factual report of the AO, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the entire books of accounts solely based on a fall in net profit rate without identifying specific defects. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition after considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and that the claim should be considered. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to investments yielding exempt income. For club expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 50% due to contradictory findings by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to verify if the quantum additions were settled under the VSV Act 2020. If settled, the AO was directed to grant the benefit of the VSV Act 2020 to the assessee regarding the penalty.