Loading ITAT cases…
465 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B should not be charged as the assessee had repeatedly requested the revenue to adjust the tax liability against the seized amount. For the penalty under Section 271AAB, the Tribunal found that the income was offered for taxation even before the search, thus the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal found no irregularity in the service of notices by the AO. The CIT(A) had already granted relief to the assessee by reducing the addition, and the remaining addition was confirmed due to lack of evidence regarding the genuineness of creditors.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were in the nature of an ascertained liability, even if not fully quantified, and were allowable as business expenditure. The disallowance based on the number of days was not legally tenable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) correctly applied its mind and there was no error in the findings. The assessee failed to establish its charitable activities and lacked proper documentation, thus the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) correctly applied its mind and there was no error in the findings. The assessee failed to establish its charitable activities and lacked proper documentation, thus the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 883 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. The death of the counsel and the evidence of incorrect dispatch details (PIN code) supported this finding. On merits, the Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 applies to credits in the 'books of account' of the assessee, and a bank account or bank passbook does not constitute 'books of account' for this purpose. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati, which held that a credit in a bank account cannot be construed as a credit in the books of the assessee. The Tribunal also distinguished the cases relied upon by the Revenue, finding them factually different or overruled. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made under Section 68. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions as the legal issue was decided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee is entitled to claim TDS credit on advances. They found no double claim of TDS and noted the assessee's consistent accounting method without any change in facts.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It agreed that the failure to specify the charge in the penalty notice, as required by law and supported by various judicial precedents, renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the factual findings. It also noted that the assessee company is under liquidation, giving overriding effect to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not press the ground related to renting expenses and conceded the ground related to repair and maintenance expenses due to the smallness of the amount and allowance of depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from software licenses were not royalty as per the India-USA DTAA, following a Supreme Court decision. Similarly, annual maintenance charges were not taxable as FIS because the 'make available' condition was not met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made additions based on confirmations without inquiring into the nature of services rendered. However, since the assessee failed to provide any evidence despite opportunities, the findings of the lower authorities were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. This is to be done after bringing the legal representatives of the deceased assessee on record and providing them with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below ought to have made necessary inquiry to verify the assessee's claims, especially since the wife and father had independent sources of income. The addition on the basis of no household withdrawal was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made additions based on confirmations without inquiring into the nature of services rendered. However, since the assessee failed to provide any evidence despite opportunities, the findings of the lower authorities were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from software licenses were not royalty as per the India-USA DTAA, following a Supreme Court decision. It also held that annual maintenance charges were not FIS as the 'make available' condition was not met.
The Tribunal held that the premium paid on currency swap contracts is in the nature of interest and allowable as a business expenditure. It also ruled that the amount on which TDS was not deducted was reimbursement of costs without profit and not revenue expenditure, thus Section 40(a)(i) was not applicable. The disallowance on rent cost difference was also deleted as it was incurred for employee welfare.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a fixed place PE in India was identical to previous years. It directed the AO to follow prior Tribunal directions for profit attribution to the PE. The Tribunal also held that link charges were not taxable as royalty, following its own previous decisions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the documents filed by the assessee. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing explanations and details of amounts received and refunded. The presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and cannot be applied mechanically, ignoring the facts.
The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee regarding the allowability of distribution expenses and other expenses, following its own previous decisions and those of the High Court. The issue of head office expenses was remitted to the Assessing Officer for correct computation.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adhering to principles of natural justice. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case and pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of salary to employees who were under the complete control and supervision of the assessee, establishing an employer-employee relationship. Therefore, TDS under Section 192 was applicable, not Section 195.
The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee regarding the allowability of distribution expenses and other expenses, following its own previous decisions and those of the High Court. The issue of head office expenses was remitted to the Assessing Officer for correct computation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it on limitation. The delay was condoned, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the grounds raised.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to technical reasons and lack of malafide. Since the underlying additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted, the penalty was also held to have no legs to stand.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case and without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not providing cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 75/-. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, the revenue's appeal on similar grounds was dismissed.
The tribunal noted the withdrawal application filed by the assessee's counsel. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,37,000/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to provide any evidence, such as a cash flow statement or cash book, to substantiate her claim of past savings.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, which disallowed deductions for delayed ESI/PF deposits, is equally applicable to assessments processed under Section 143(1). Therefore, adjustments made by the CPC for delayed deposits are valid.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, which disallowed deductions for delayed ESI/PF deposits, is equally applicable to assessments processed under Section 143(1). Therefore, adjustments made by the CPC for delayed deposits are valid.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for late payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is settled by the Supreme Court in 'Checkmate Services Private Limited'. The Tribunal further held that the power to make such adjustments under Section 143(1) is valid and applicable, even to intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to subserve the interest of natural justice, given the lack of effective representation from the assessee and unserved notices.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, considering the lack of proper representation and the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off business losses against deemed income for the assessment year in question, following a CBDT circular and co-ordinate bench decisions. The CIT(A)'s order denying this set-off was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to get the appeal restored if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the commission income was taxable in the hands of the deceased's legal heirs for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-open the assessment for AY 2013-14 to bring the commission income to tax and allow the TDS credit in the hands of the deceased's legal heirs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking regarding the disallowance of Section 54F deduction and that re-characterizing the capital gain as short-term without a hearing violated natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the Department had issued a final settlement order. Therefore, the appeal no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the correct facts and submissions presented by the assessee. Instead of deciding on the merits, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the transaction, which is an apparent error.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search, making the assessment under Section 153A invalid for a completed assessment. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on merits, agreeing that the amount was a returnable loan and not income in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the quantum appeal's result.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction for not accepting the assessee's suo motu disallowance. Therefore, the additional disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, which disallowed deductions for delayed ESI/PF deposits, is equally applicable to assessments processed under Section 143(1). Therefore, adjustments made by the CPC for delayed deposits are valid.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, which disallowed deductions for delayed ESI/PF deposits, is equally applicable to assessments processed under Section 143(1). Therefore, adjustments made by the CPC for delayed deposits are valid.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not brought any evidence to show that the cash withdrawn by the assessee was utilized or spent, thus it was available for redeposit. The explanation of the assessee regarding cash deposits being out of earlier withdrawals was not controverted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in directing remedial action for past assessment years as it was beyond his jurisdiction. The issue of recovery of the embezzled amount for the current year was remitted back to the AO for factual verification.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and noted that the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.