Loading ITAT cases…
524 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment electronically and subsequently provided all the requested information. Therefore, the levy of penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of imposing penalty on a different ground than the one for which satisfaction was drawn is untenable in law. The continuity in the AO's satisfaction from the assessment stage to the penalty stage is crucial.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of imposing penalty on a different ground than the one for which satisfaction was drawn is untenable in law. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of the undisclosed foreign bank account balance itself was not established, any addition on account of notional interest earned therein is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision which had dismissed the revenue's appeals for earlier years on similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of imposing penalty on a different ground than the one for which satisfaction was drawn is untenable in law. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 107 days, finding the cause shown by the assessee to be sufficient. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found it expedient to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to produce all relevant evidence to support the exemption claim, and the AO will proceed accordingly after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 14A(3) before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made without this prerequisite is unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries regarding the cash gifts received by the assessee. Since the AO had taken a plausible view based on the evidence, the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
The ITAT held that the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act by offering the sales as income and subsequently writing off the unrecoverable amounts as bad debts. Therefore, the deduction for bad debts was allowable.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on windmills should be allowed based on consistency with prior years and the assessee's objects. Regarding foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court decision in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., allowing it as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on windmills should be allowed based on consistency with prior years and the assessee's objects. Regarding foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court decision in Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., allowing it as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made solely based on retracted statements of alleged entry operators and directors, and reports of physical verification. The assessee argued that they had provided documentary evidence and requested cross-examination, which was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Revenue's appeal was based on these disputed statements.
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made solely based on retracted statements of alleged entry operators and directors, and reports of physical verification. The assessee argued that they had provided documentary evidence and requested cross-examination, which was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Revenue's appeal was based on these disputed statements.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the AO's addition was primarily based on retracted statements of entry operators and directors, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity, after being duly informed of the merger, is void ab initio. The notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were declared non est.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of all grounds of appeal, even if proceeding ex parte. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of all grounds of appeal, even if proceeding ex parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the books of accounts. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh examination of the books and a decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to distributors for service tax liability were closely related to the business activities and incurred due to commercial expediency. Therefore, the write-off as bad debts was allowable as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-residents were in the nature of commercial services and contract work under Section 194C, not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii). Therefore, these payments were not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of design and development expenses was unjustified as similar expenses were allowed in preceding and succeeding years, and the AO failed to prove the transactions were not bonafide. The addition on account of suppressed scrap sales was also set aside as it was based on internet research without concrete material and the percentage of scrap sales was consistent with other years.
The Tribunal held that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the employee's contribution to PF and ESI must be deposited on or before the due dates prescribed under the respective acts to be eligible for deduction. Failure to do so results in disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the books of accounts. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh examination of the books and a decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was a mere technicality, lacking genuine application of mind due to last-minute submission of draft orders and insufficient review of seized materials. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine. The Tribunal found the assessee's attitude to be cavalier, noting the continuous non-compliance and lack of reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the additional income offered was not 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAA, especially as the Assessing Officer did not make additions based on this disclosure in the assessment order. The Tribunal also found that the assessee met the conditions for exceptions under Section 271AAA(2) in the second case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment order. The assessee was to be given a due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the disclosed income was not 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAA. Even if some income was considered undisclosed, the assessee met the conditions for exceptions under Section 271AAA(2).
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the approving authority and the AO's failure to follow the mandatory procedure of disposing of objections.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not have presumed the assessee inflated receipts in prior months anticipating demonetization. The AO also failed to point out any defects in the assessee's books of account, making the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal declined to entertain the appeal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The Tribunal also refused to admit the additional grounds of appeal raised at such a belated stage without proper justification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before disregarding the assessee's suo moto disallowance, as mandated by Section 14A(2). Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal found no error in the findings of the lower tax authorities. It noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the non-cross-examination of witnesses and that there was sufficient material to support the finding of cash payments.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's habitual non-cooperation and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the potential relevance of documents allegedly filed and to ensure a just decision, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the complete reasons for reassessment vitiated the proceedings. Relying on High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal found that incomplete communication of reasons is fatal to the reopening.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, holding that share of profit from a partnership is a distribution of already taxed income and Section 14A is not attracted. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 80IB(11A) deduction, finding the assessee fulfilled the conditions.
The Tribunal held that the use of machinery is a question of fact requiring evidence. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of actual use of the power finishers on the claimed date, the lower authorities' decision was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred in the course of business and not for infraction of law, as the import was freely permissible at the time of order and arrival, and the circular was issued later. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty and compounding fees were already disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to explain the credit balances by providing necessary documentation. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order upholding the penalty remains in effect.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, holding that share of profit from a partnership is a distribution of already taxed income and Section 14A is not attracted. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 80IB(11A) deduction, finding the assessee fulfilled the conditions.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) without a saving clause meant it was to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's revisionary power exercised under this omitted provision was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not providing a finding on the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The issue was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration of the additional evidence and a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law as it was issued by an officer without valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice was void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that crucial bank statements of the lenders, which were not before the Assessing Officer, were presented before the CIT(A) as additional evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, leading to a denial of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague and lacked a live link to a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found no tangible material to infer that income escaped due to CCM, thus quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO discarded the assessee's explanation without further inquiry and that the connection to alleged accommodation entries was based on mere presumption. The Tribunal found that the sale of jewellery as long-term capital gain was not disproved by sufficient evidence.