Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF & ESI beyond the due dates stipulated in the respective Acts leads to disallowance. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it reasonable given the facts and circumstances. The assessee failed to provide any explanation for the incriminating documents.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which mandates a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals to the Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and without adjudicating the issues on merit. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the entire demand leading to the penalty was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. If confirmed, immunity from penalty was to be granted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and without adjudicating the issues on merit. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issue was covered by previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The royalty payments were allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify if the income corresponding to the brought forward TDS was offered to tax in the concerned assessment year. If verified, the AO should allow the set-off.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee PF/ESI contributions is not allowable as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service P. Ltd. However, the interest paid on late TDS deposit was considered a debatable issue outside the scope of Section 143(1) adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method used by the assessee, relying on market reports and broker quotes, was not appropriate. It upheld the use of customs data by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as a more reliable basis for benchmarking international transactions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a 'change of opinion' and 'suspicion' without tangible material. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be well-reasoned and logical.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision which held that leave encashment is allowable as a deduction in the year of actual payment, not when the provision is made. Therefore, the disallowance for the provision made in the current year was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue of technical know-how fee being revenue expenditure is a legacy issue covered by its own consistent decisions in the assessee's case for preceding years. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the penalty appeal after adjudicating the quantum appeal and providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not exigible as no undisclosed income was found during the search, and the assessee had disclosed all particulars in its returns. The explanation for filing a nil return was not found to be false.
The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 195 of the Act were applicable and the assessee's case was not covered by exceptions. Since the assessee failed to appear or provide any rebuttal, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that for calculating disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in Cargo Motors (P) Ltd. Since the AO had considered total investments, the issue was restored to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of an earlier agreement was not substantiated, as the payments were made in the financial year 2016-17 and the sale deed was executed in 2017. The penalty under Section 271D was rightly applied.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities failed to provide sufficient reason for departing from the consistent method of attributing 1% of offshore supply receipts to the PE, as per Article 7(6) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The addition made by the AO was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO misrepresented facts regarding appeals filed by the revenue, and since no appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16, the additions made by the AO for transfer pricing adjustments on power and steam were deleted. For other issues, the Tribunal restored them to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the case was not one of absolute non-compliance and that the assessee's authorized representative had personal difficulties. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, taking into account the assessee's submissions, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, set aside the impugned appellate order and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the application. The assessee was given liberty to file a fresh application after obtaining the required permissions and approvals to demonstrate its commitment to its stated charitable objects.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, granting the assessee an opportunity to contest the case on merits. This was due to the dismissal in limine and sustaining additions for want of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO misrepresented facts regarding appeals filed by the revenue, and since no appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16, the additions made by the AO for transfer pricing adjustments on power and steam were deleted. For other issues, the Tribunal restored them to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the advance and its return. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits and produce the sale agreement.
The Tribunal held that the AO misrepresented facts regarding appeals filed by the revenue, and since no appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16, the additions made by the AO for transfer pricing adjustments on power and steam were deleted. For other issues, the Tribunal restored them to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the DCF valuation solely based on subsequent actual figures, as valuation is an estimate and not an exact science. The Tribunal also noted that the shares were issued to the holding company, suggesting the anti-abuse provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) might not be applicable in such a scenario.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the correct interest amount from Form 26AS. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the correct figure and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 by not substantiating the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the investor company and the genuineness of the transaction. The theory of a conduit company was not accepted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for acquisition of property, as well as loss on stamp paper purchased for acquisition, forms part of the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal noted that amendments to Section 48 to prevent double deduction are prospective, thus upholding the existing position.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and its belated filing should not lead to the denial of FTC. The Tribunal relied on various co-ordinate bench decisions that held similar views.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A), finding that the penny stock transactions were a colorable device and the phenomenal return was only possible through such a scheme. The additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed by an authority who lacked jurisdiction, similar to a prior case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to provide a legible copy of the impounded document and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish its explanation.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to their defunct status and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue notices as per the Act and Rules.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing ITRs, company master data, and bank statements of the share applicants. The tribunal upheld this decision, finding that the documentary evidence sufficiently established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting that the assessee failed to provide confirmations or explanations for static creditors and outstanding liabilities. The authorities below were found to have passed a reasonable order.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of delayed employee contributions is generally against the assessee as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, since the CIT(A) allegedly ignored the assessee's submissions, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of delayed employee contributions is generally against the assessee as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, since the CIT(A) allegedly ignored the assessee's submissions, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had closed its business and vacated the premises where notices were sent. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the well-reasoned decision of the lower authorities. The assessee's submissions were considered ambiguous and lacking supporting details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings or misplaced reliance on the CBDT circular. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings or misplaced reliance on the CBDT circular. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The AO failed to provide the assessee with adverse material or an opportunity for cross-examination, despite repeated requests. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a link between the AIR information and the formation of the 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings, notice, and order were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the CIT(A) for both depreciation and Section 14A. The Tribunal followed its own prior order and the Delhi High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year, finding no fresh facts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and had failed to establish the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.