Loading ITAT cases…
465 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as it was based on a document not signed by the assessee and not acted upon. There was no corroborative evidence or independent enquiry by the AO to support the claim of cash payment.
The Tribunal held that the 'flip-flop' approach by the revenue in taxing the same income substantively in the hands of the assessee for AY 2019-20, when it should have been taxed in another entity (MOLC), was legally unsustainable. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's hands for AY 2019-20 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the 'flip-flop' approach by the revenue in taxing the same income substantively in the hands of the assessee for AY 2019-20, when it should have been taxed in another entity (MOLC), was legally unsustainable. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's hands for AY 2019-20 was deleted.
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 dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for administrative expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of services rendered and that similar expenses were allowed in other years. The miscellaneous expenses claim was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.
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 held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if deposited after the due date stipulated in the respective Acts, cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that additions should not be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative evidence. The CBDT instructions also emphasize avoiding coercion and focusing on evidence gathering. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided bank statements and explanations to the AO, but the AO had already passed an ex-parte assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is justified. Following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is allowed only if the employees' share is deposited before the due date stipulated in the respective Acts.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Authority. The assessee is to be given a fresh opportunity to present her case and submit supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are chargeable to tax in the hands of the owner of the capital asset, not the person who acted as an attorney or whose bank account received the sale proceeds. Therefore, the addition made under the head 'capital gains' in the assessee's hands was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies to gratuitous loans or advances enjoyed by shareholders due to their shareholding. It does not apply when loans or advances are given in return for an advantage conferred upon the company by the shareholder, such as protecting the company's business interests. The Tribunal found that the advance in this case was given to protect the business interest of the company, as the assessee had mortgaged property to secure a loan for the company.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry as the assessee provided documents and explanations regarding the source of the Rs. 18,00,000/- payment. The Revisional Authority's order was not sustainable as it failed to provide a reasoned basis to disbelieve the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and income tax returns of the two parties. The AO's own remand report did not contain any adverse findings regarding the genuineness of these advances.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO for notional interest on overdue receivables from AEs was not sustainable. It followed the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was below this limit, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The Tribunal excluded 'Infobeans Technologies Ltd.' as a comparable due to its diversified business including software product sales and lack of segmental data. It restored the issue of 'MPS Limited' to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The issue of transfer pricing adjustment and interest on receivables was also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal allowed adjustment for depreciation on assets, reversing the DRP's findings. For the manufacturing segment, the Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not considered on merits and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the principle of consistency and previous orders from the Tribunal and Delhi High Court. It ruled that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the TPO and DRP were not justified in determining the arm's length price of management services at Nil, especially when the assessee had provided documentary evidence of services rendered. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in similar cases for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside and restored for fresh decision, the penalty levied in respect of those additions did not survive. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the penalty was set aside.
The tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, making the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were loan transactions squared up during the financial year through banking channels and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. Suspicion alone cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures, lacking any comparison or justification for deeming the profit excessive. The reasoning that the assessee would not have paid profit if it had done the work itself was found to be bizarre and legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries by issuing questionnaires and receiving replies from the assessee. The fact that the AO passed the order quickly due to time-barring limitations did not invalidate the assessment. Therefore, the PCIT's exercise of power under Section 263 was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the issue was revenue neutral as the project was completed in subsequent years and the percentage of completion method was accepted for those years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of sales to M/s Haryana Traders to the Assessing Officer for verification of statutory returns and supporting evidence. The addition made under Section 40A(3) for payments to M/s Vasu Steels was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and not cogent enough to condone the substantial time lapse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that delayed receivables from AEs beyond the credit period can be considered an international transaction and interest can be imputed. However, the interest calculation needed to be restricted. The addition to contract revenue was deleted as it was covered by a previous decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the valuation done by the assessee from a prescribed expert using a prescribed method. Valuation is not an exact science and cannot be reviewed with actual figures after the fact.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not independently verify the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration and re-decision after examining the evidence and allowing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO must specify the nature of the default in the penalty notice for it to be valid. An omnibus notice without specifying the charge renders the penalty levied without jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the AO to ascertain the factual veracity of the penalty notice.
The Tribunal held that the AO must specify the nature of the default in the penalty notice for it to be valid. An omnibus notice without specifying the charge renders the penalty levied without jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the AO to ascertain the factual veracity of the penalty notice.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim that the deductees had declared the interest and paid tax, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to factually verify if the deductees have shown the interest income and paid the due tax.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity and the authorities below did not appreciate the facts correctly. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) to provide the AO with an opportunity to respond to the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was required to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment. Non-supply of reasons deprived the assessee of their legal right to object, thus vitiating the reopening. The reopening was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the source of investments was clearly reflected in the assessee's NRE account, which was funded from foreign bank accounts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition after examining documents submitted by the assessee. However, both parties agreed that the matter should be referred back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the order of the CIT under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent reassessment order passed based on that direction does not survive. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the additions becomes non-est in law.
The ITAT had previously quashed the section 263 order. Consequently, the present assessment order and the subsequent appeal have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that payments made for company incorporation and legal services to Malaysian and Bangladeshi entities were not taxable in India as these entities had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, thus no tax withholding was required. The IPO related expenses were allowed as business expansion expenses under Section 35D, and ESOP expenses were also allowed. However, write-off of Swachh Bharat Cess receivable was disallowed for non-compliance with Section 43B(a).
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.