Loading ITAT cases…
479 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. has ruled that employee's contribution to PF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was not tenable prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee imposed for defaults prior to this date is contrary to law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's detailed submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium granted under the IBC, the assessee is estopped from pursuing the appeals. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period ends.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was not tenable prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee imposed for defaults prior to this date is contrary to law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was not tenable prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee imposed for defaults prior to this date is contrary to law.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for Revenue appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and is applicable to pending appeals, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new facts. The assessee had fully disclosed all relevant facts during the original assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the name of the assessee in the appeal form was incorrect, reflecting an old name instead of the current name 'Nutrionex Manufactures Ltd.'. No steps were taken to amend the name.
The Tribunal found that both the disallowance of expenses and the addition under Section 50C required a fresh examination. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored both issues to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had previously rented the property at Rs. 2,20,000 per month to an embassy, indicating bona fide conduct. The estimation of income by the authorities below was considered arbitrary without cogent reasons.
The assessee's authorized representative expressed a wish to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to consider the amended trust deed and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard on other issues.
The Tribunal held that brand promotion expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable as revenue expenditure, especially when similar expenses were allowed in previous years. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found the assessee's suo motu disallowance of Rs. 50,000 to be sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the difference between interest rates on secured bank loans and unsecured loans from private parties can be an acceptable range. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had already granted relief on cash deposits by applying the peak credit theory, a further addition for estimated business income was not justified, leading to the setting aside of that addition. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the relationship between the assessee and guest faculties involved control and supervision, indicating a contract of service. Therefore, the payments were akin to salary and not professional fees, and since individual incomes were below the taxable limit, no TDS default occurred.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the evidence presented by the assessee regarding the source of deposits, which included funds from the assessee's mother and father. The addition was deleted as the deposits were not business receipts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employee contributions to EPF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. Belated deposit of employee contributions does not allow for deduction.
The ITAT found that the assessment order was passed in the name of a deceased person, which rendered it illegal. The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the continuation of proceedings against the legal heir. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order and restored the grounds to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to EPF/ESI, if deposited after the due date, are not deductible. This is because such amounts are considered income and must be deposited on or before the due date as per Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as it was filed against a non-existent penalty order. Therefore, the assessee had no grievance against the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing with the CIT(Appeals) that the penalty notice was bad in law for not specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that reassessment proceedings initiated after four years were invalid as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. It also agreed that the relevant rules dispensed with the mandatory filing of audit reports with electronic returns.
The Tribunal noted that a crucial ground regarding the non-specification of the charge in the penalty notice (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was not dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 for penalty was vague as it did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the issue of disallowance of interest on convertible debentures was decided in the assessee's own case for a prior year and declined to support the CIT(A)'s rationale. For the interest on borrowed funds for work in progress, the case was remanded to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of gratuity provision requires verification of actuarial valuation by the AO. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting it to the exempt income. Regarding depreciation on computer peripherals, the AO was directed to re-compute at 60%. The additional depreciation claim was also upheld in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68 for AY 2009-10 as the creditors were genuine and subsequently discharged. The disallowance for car/telephone expenses for AY 2010-11 was upheld as reasonable. The addition under Section 41(1) for AY 2010-11 was deleted as the creditors had not ceased to exist.
The assessee had opted to settle the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. In the absence of any objection from the Revenue, the appeal was considered withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It agreed that the penalty did not survive as the underlying addition, which was the basis for imposing the penalty, had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of development expenses as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the claimed expenses. Similarly, the additions to the closing stock were confirmed due to the assessee's failure to controvert the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The transaction was confirmed as an accommodation entry.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee failed to provide cogent material to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The shares showed an astronomical increase in value without justifiable reasons.
The Tribunal held that the addition of cash under Section 69A was made through a rectification order under Section 154, which was jurisdictionally impermissible as there was no apparent mistake in the original assessment. Furthermore, the addition was based on surmises and conjectures and lacked merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with due opportunity of being heard or for cross-examination by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide specific reasons or evidence to justify the ad-hoc disallowances. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found no merit in making disallowances without pointing out specific defects in the vouchers or substantiating them with depreciative material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments. It held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that an incorrect claim, even if not sustainable in law, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of law, dishonest conduct, or conscious disregard of obligations. The assessee demonstrated bona fide, and the mistake did not result in any loss of revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed a laconic order without adequately dealing with the assessee's submissions and case laws. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a detailed adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the debit notes provided by the head office sufficiently detailed the employees, duties, and hours, and the tax authorities overstressed the non-production of time log sheets. The disallowance of engineering expenses was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the debit notes provided by the head office sufficiently detailed the employees, duties, and hours, and the tax authorities overstressed the non-production of time log sheets. The disallowance of engineering expenses was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had filed Form 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. As per the Act, the appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot travel beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Exercising revisionary powers on issues not examined by the AO during limited scrutiny is vitiated and beyond the scope of Section 263.
The Tribunal admitted the alternate claim under Section 54F and directed the AO to adjudicate it. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to rebut the evidence collected by the AO behind their back, remitting the merits of the addition for fresh consideration.