Loading ITAT cases…
451 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's retirement. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the issue of penalty was restored to the file of the jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal upheld the departmental authorities' decision, noting the assessee's failure to challenge similar additions in preceding years and their inability to provide evidence to rebut the findings. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the taxability of the receipts as FTS.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment under Section 147 as there was tangible material. The ex-parte assessment under Section 144 was also deemed valid due to the assessee's non-compliance. The addition of unexplained cash deposits was confirmed as the assessee failed to substantiate the source.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the grounds on merits, as Section 250(6) of the Act mandates adjudication. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance without considering the substantive issues.
The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities made additions because the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support its expenditures. Since the assessee chose to remain ex parte, no other conclusion could be reached.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance is justified based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT. The employee's contribution to PF & ESI must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. Since the reopening was after four years, the proviso to Section 147 required such failure, which was absent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution is not deductible as per Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, the disallowance of GST late fee was deleted as it is not an expenditure prohibited by law.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the grounds on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's submission that service tax was not routed through the P&L account was contrary to the financial statements. Therefore, Section 43B was correctly invoked, and the disallowance was upheld.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. Since the reopening was after four years, the proviso to Section 147 required such failure, which was absent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal upheld the quashing of assessment proceedings under Section 153A on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are not in the nature of royalty or FTS. The access provided is for copyrighted material rather than the use of copyright itself, and there is no human intervention for technical services.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance by following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which was also upheld by the Delhi High Court in a subsequent order. The grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be without substance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly quashed the assessment proceedings under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search that formed the basis of the additions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions on merits, finding that cash withdrawals sufficiently explained the cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly quashed the assessment proceedings under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search that formed the basis of the additions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions on merits, finding that cash withdrawals sufficiently explained the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of furnishing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and that FTC cannot be denied solely for the delay in filing the form. The matter was remanded to the AO to allow the FTC claim after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It noted that the revenue could approach the Tribunal again once the final outcome of the dispute is known.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and the alleged default under Section 249(4). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due date prescribed by the relevant Act must be added back to the assessee's income. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan transaction.
The Tribunal upheld the departmental authorities' decision, noting the assessee's failure to challenge similar additions in preceding years and their inability to provide evidence to rebut the findings. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the taxability of the receipts as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash expenses and did not provide evidence for a claimed typographical error. The CIT(A) had already partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the prerequisites of Section 147 and its first proviso for reopening the assessment beyond four years. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the transactions were between relatives and there was no evidence to link them to any undisclosed property transactions, and that the repayment was demonstrated in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly quashed the assessment proceedings under Section 153A as there was no incriminating material found during the search that formed the basis of the additions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions on merits, finding that cash withdrawals sufficiently explained the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with the assessee's explanation regarding opening cash balance and tuition fee income. The Tribunal found no valid reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 4,97,841.
The Tribunal held that the assessee never exploited the technology at any of its units, based on excise details and machinery lists. Consequently, royalty payments net of license fees received should be apportioned among all manufacturing units on a pro-rata basis, not exclusively to the Jammu unit.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, for the purpose of computing book profit must be considered on an accumulated basis, not on a year-to-year comparison. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as infructuous, following its previous order for AY 2009-10. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals after the NCLT proceedings conclude.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable as a deduction as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. However, the AO was directed to verify if the payments were made within the statutory due dates.
The Tribunal held that the employee contributions to PF & ESIC, if paid after the statutory due dates, are to be added back to the assessee's income. This decision followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty was being levied in the show cause notice and penalty order. Furthermore, the Revenue failed to establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as no incriminating material was found during the search and no variation was made to the declared income in the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee never exploited the technology at any of its units, based on excise details and machinery lists. Consequently, royalty payments net of license fees received should be apportioned among all manufacturing units on a pro-rata basis, not exclusively to the Jammu unit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transaction. The director of the investor company did not appear for deposition, and the assessee's approach was evasive.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb under which penalty was being levied in the show cause notice and penalty order. Furthermore, no incriminating material or adverse inference was established to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the penalties were imposed after the expiry of the limitation period as the initial notices were invalid due to incorrect details. The assessee's pleas of genuine transactions and bonafide belief were not accepted as reasonable cause.