Loading ITAT cases…
479 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunities for hearing and that the lower authorities did not decide the issues on merit. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo order. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and for proper verification of claims.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation and documentation. The AO's order was not erroneous simply because it lacked elaborate discussion.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to issue the refund of excess dividend tax. This decision followed a previous ruling for the same assessee in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance on cartage and stores & spares expenses. However, the issue of Long Term Capital Gain was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits as per Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not dismiss them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO's rejection of books and adoption of an 8% GP rate were not justified, especially since the assessee only dealt in ITC products and the historical GP rate for such products was significantly lower.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI is justified following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service P. Ltd. However, the disallowance of interest on late TDS payment is a debatable issue and outside the scope of section 143(1) processing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without deciding the appeal on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is upheld following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service P. Ltd. However, the disallowance of interest on late TDS deposit is deleted as it is a debatable issue outside the scope of section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee was a legal ground and should have been admitted by the CIT(A). The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunities for hearing and that the lower authorities did not decide the issues on merit. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contribution to PF/ESI is to be upheld following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service P. Ltd. However, the disallowance of interest on late TDS deposit is to be deleted as it's a debatable issue outside the scope of section 143(1).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the cheques were never presented or realized, and the builder had requested their return. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had deleted the addition based on these facts.
The Tribunal held that receipts from leasing rigs for mineral oil exploration are taxable as business profits under Section 44BB, not royalty. It clarified that Section 44BB does not require a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and has an overriding effect on royalty provisions in certain cases.
The Tribunal noted that the Act of 2020 provides for the deemed withdrawal of pending appeals upon issuance of a certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on legal grounds, agreeing that the addition was not based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that there was no international transaction concerning AMP expenditure, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The AO/TPO was directed to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the advance was part of a business transaction where the assessee provided a corporate guarantee and collateral security for a loan to Riello, which was supported by bank sanction letters and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings to the assessee. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed before the search and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made were bad in law. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merit and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, citing the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment. The appeal regarding penalty proceedings was rejected as premature.
The Tribunal held that receipts from leasing rigs for mineral oil exploration are taxable as business profits under Section 44BB, not royalty. It clarified that Section 44BB does not require a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and has an overriding effect on royalty provisions in certain cases.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of professional fees due to non-deduction of TDS, finding the assessee's arguments regarding Section 194J applicability and the nature of services unconvincing. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of share trading losses and related expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the transactions were sham. The addition on account of interest expense was also upheld due to lack of nexus and unspecified purpose of borrowing.