Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the nature of investments and their returns should be considered distinctly. Investments in debt instruments or those yielding capital gains should not be subject to disallowance under Section 14A in the same manner as dividend-yielding investments.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had deleted the additions as per the directions of the CIT(A), making the appeal infructuous. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was with liberty to restore the appeal if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not successful.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- received from two individuals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity. The addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the third individual was deleted as it was satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal declined to condone the inordinate delay of 121 days in filing the appeal, citing negligence and lethargy on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause (serious illness) for not submitting documents and replies to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to accept the additional evidence and reconsider the matter.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is in the nature of compensation and not taxable as interest under the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the assessee's failure to justify the delay and their non-compliance with statutory notices. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was not from undisclosed sources, considering the assessee's circumstances and prior cash withdrawals. However, FDR interest and widow pension were considered taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in automatically confirming the penalty solely based on the confirmation of the quantum addition. The assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, and the merits of the penalty levy should have been independently considered.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order had indeed been quashed by the ITAT in a separate appeal. Consequently, the revision order passed by the CIT under section 263 could not survive.
The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, finding no mitigating circumstances to interfere due to the assessee's continued non-cooperation and lack of rebuttal.
The Tribunal held that the amount paid to the original allottee, including any premium, forms part of the cost of acquisition. The PCIT erred in not appreciating the evidence and expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019 was misplaced as the case did not involve bogus capital gains through penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and brokerage expenses are revenue in nature and should be allowed as business expenditure once the business is set up. However, interest paid to Noida Authority for late payment of lease money is a capital expenditure related to the project and should be capitalized.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, relying on its own previous decisions for identical facts. Consequently, the additions made by way of profit attribution to the alleged PE were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessment order was declared null and void.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, relying on its own previous decisions for identical facts. Consequently, the additions made by way of profit attribution to the alleged PE were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, relying on its own previous decisions for identical facts. Consequently, the additions made by way of profit attribution to the alleged PE were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The assessee also did not appear to pursue the appeal effectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, relying on its own previous decisions for identical facts. Consequently, the additions made by way of profit attribution to the alleged PE were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, relying on its own previous decisions for identical facts. Consequently, the additions made by way of profit attribution to the alleged PE were deleted.
The Tribunal held that ceding commission paid by a reinsurer to an insurer is not for soliciting or procuring insurance business, and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019 was misplaced as the case did not involve bogus capital gains through penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to adjudicate all grounds of appeal, even in an ex-parte situation. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a payment made on the day after a public holiday (August 16th following August 15th) should be treated as on-time. For other delayed payments, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the claim of a grace period.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. No material was presented by the assessee to rebut the findings of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The applicability of Section 115BBE at the higher rate was a debatable issue, especially since the amended provisions were not in effect at the time of the survey.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that Section 14A amendments are prospective and no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. Since the suo motu disallowance exceeded the exempt income, the CIT(A)'s decision was deemed correct.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a due opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019 was misplaced as the case did not involve bogus capital gains through penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) and principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue of interest-free loans to subsidiaries was decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion, especially as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the depreciation claim was not rational. Accepting the assessee's claim for current year depreciation would increase the profit before tax, meaning the taxable income was understated.
The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments that emphasize the invalidity of proceedings against a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation.
The Tribunal held that making an addition for AY 2016-17 on identical cash deposits made during the demonetization period (which falls within AY 2017-18) amounts to a double addition. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The ESOP expenses and prior period expenses were considered allowable deductions, and the AO had applied his mind to these issues. However, the interest on late TDS/TCS payments was disallowed as it was not considered a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the business was set up, and expenses incurred after setting up but before commencement of business are allowable. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The AO failed to conduct proper inquiry, and the issue was covered by previous ITAT and High Court orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. Following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued 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) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. Consequently, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable as a business expense, following its own precedents and the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The expenditure was incurred to run, operate, and continue its business.
The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any supporting material or rebut the lower authorities' findings. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the Form 26AS difference after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. It also set aside the ad-hoc disallowances, agreeing that they were made without specific justification.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of corpus donations as taxable income, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the source of donations. No fresh material was produced by the assessee to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to appreciate the transactions in totality, including prior loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated because the notice under Section 143(2) was issued without proper application of mind and without having the original return of income. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is justified. The deduction under section 36(1)(va) is allowable only if the employees' share is deposited before the due date stipulated in the respective Acts, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.