Loading ITAT cases…
479 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that for valid assessment under Section 153A, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 must have been conducted on the assessee. Since no such search occurred, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to issue notices and frame assessments under Section 153A.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that while generally one cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly, additional evidence must be admitted if the assessee shows circumstances as per Rule 46A. The AO should have provided further opportunity if not satisfied with documents. The CIT(A)'s rejection was set aside, and the additional evidence was admitted.
The Tribunal held that the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee demonstrated sufficient funds to cover the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO failed to confront the seized documents and statement of Shri Satvir Singh to the assessee. The burden of proof lies with the AO, and the assessee cannot be expected to produce the seller for cross-examination when the material was collected behind her back.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty was being levied under. The penalty was deleted on this technical ground.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of late deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence not presented to the AO, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and failed to consider their written submissions. Consequently, the revisionary order was set aside.
The CIT(A) erred by not considering the passport copy submitted by the assessee as evidence for determining residential status. The issue is restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that for valid assessment under Section 153A, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 must have been conducted on the assessee. Since no such search occurred, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to issue notices and frame assessments under Section 153A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that revenue authorities had allowed depreciation and expenses as directed by the High Court. They also allowed the set-off of business income with losses from 'income from other sources', disallowing only unrelated expenses.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.
The Tribunal held that the charging of fee under Section 234E, as an adjustment under Section 200A, is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to take necessary steps for the refund of any amount deposited by the assessee on this count.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was bad in law due to the non-service of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) at the correct address. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as it did not survive.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under section 36(1)(va) for employee's contribution to PF/ESI is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding them invalid due to the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued and served after the filing of the return. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal, following precedents, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by adopting a commission rate of 0.50% instead of the originally assessed rate. The appeals were decided based on this modification.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have excluded the period of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal, following precedents, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by adopting a commission rate of 0.50% instead of the originally assessed rate. The appeals were decided based on this modification.
The Tribunal held that the investments sold were part of the Rs. 18,40,391/- declared in the Wealth Tax Return for AY 1998-99, which was accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based on the ground that no details of the sale were given in the relevant assessment year or later, and the assessee failed to establish that the shares shown in AY 1998-99 were the same as those sold. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order for AY 1998-99 under Section 16(3) mentioned "investment in shares Rs. 18,40,391/-". The Tribunal concluded that since these investments were declared and accepted, no further addition was called for. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 14,98,599/- was deleted. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 29,971/- on account of commission was not explicitly discussed or decided upon in the provided text.
The Tribunal, following precedents, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by adopting a commission rate of 0.50% instead of the originally assessed rate. The appeals were decided based on this modification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received an order in Form No. 5 for full and final settlement of taxes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should verify whether the trust's charitable purposes are for the general public or exclusively for a specific community. Based on this verification, a decision should be made in accordance with the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the matter was remanded. The assessee pleaded to submit all expenditure details if given a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment giving rise to the penalty was quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the basis for the penalty no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee opted to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee is permitted to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits in the company's account were followed by transfers to the lender and then to the assessee, with a significant number of intervening transactions. The explanation for the loan's source was deemed unsatisfactory.
The Tribunal, following precedents, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by adopting a commission rate of 0.50% instead of the originally assessed rate. The appeals were decided based on this modification.
The Tribunal held that profits from offshore supply of equipment are not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of property and payment, occurs outside India. The existence of a PE does not automatically make all profits taxable, only those with an economic nexus to the PE.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity and following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for an earlier year. The Tribunal agreed that TDS was not required on communication charges and that depreciation on the software license was allowable at 60%.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not computed the disallowance in accordance with the law and the assessee's submissions. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance after verifying the figures related to investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed significant bank credits and that his declared business was inconsistent with VAT returns. While acknowledging the undisclosed amounts, the Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 8% to 3% on the total turnover.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest on price difference, relying on its own previous year's decisions. It upheld the disallowance of gifts, finding the assessee failed to prove their exclusive business purpose. The disallowance of interest on excise duty was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. For the penalty, it adopted a liberal approach due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the disallowance, it found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and directed the AO to reconsider the evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. For the penalty, it adopted a liberal approach due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the disallowance, it found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and directed the AO to reconsider the evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the Rs. 50 lakhs limit as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that income from sub-licensing of 'Designated Rights' for live transmissions of sporting events is not royalty. It followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, distinguishing between copyright and broadcasting rights.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for genuineness of the loan. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s revised disallowance of expenses, finding it to be a reasonable estimation in the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that TDS payable, if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, is deductible. This is supported by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and the provisions of Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to follow established legal principles regarding the presumption of utilizing interest-free funds for investments when available. It also noted the lack of reasoning for deviating from previous years' favorable decisions for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of exemption under Section 11 had already been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s action in deleting the disallowance was upheld.