Loading ITAT cases…
503 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was partly confirmed, and the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deleted. Regarding damaged assets, the Tribunal ruled that depreciation should be allowed, and the issue of repair expenses was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of the deposit of PF & ESI contributions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P.Ltd. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to independently adjudicate the grounds of appeal and made factually incorrect observations. The CIT(A) did not provide reasons for his decision as required by law.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the matter to its file. The NFAC is directed to re-decide the appeal afresh after providing adequate opportunity to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the AO's basis was an unsigned, undated draft agreement seized from a third party, lacking corroborative evidence. The property was ultimately transferred via registered sale deeds, and the sale consideration was accepted by the Revenue in the buyers' cases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration. The orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the option to choose the valuation method as per Rules 11U and 11UA, and the AO could not substitute his own valuation. The rejection of the DCF method of valuation by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. The transactions were carried out with unrelated parties, and the AO could not prove any collusion or that the parties acted against the law.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the assessee's claim regarding the timely deposit of PF and ESI contributions. The Assessing Officer is to decide after considering evidence and the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration. The orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the assessee's claim regarding the timely deposit of PF and ESI contributions. The Assessing Officer is to decide after considering evidence and the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was recognized as a 'Startup' by the DIPP with effect from 07/06/2012, with the certificate issued on 14/01/2019, which was before the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 22/2019 dated 30/08/2019, which clarified that for assessments made before 19th February 2019, if a recognized startup filed a declaration in Form No. 2, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) would not be applicable. The circular further stated that in cases pending before CIT(A), the appellate order should be passed by 31 December 2019, taking into account the startup status and Form No. 2 filing, and the Department should not file further appeals. The Tribunal also relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in DCIT Vs. Ms. Kovali Media Put Ltd., which held that a recognized startup is outside the scope of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees used for entertaining clients are a business expense. It also ruled that Section 69C is not applicable for unverifiable purchases when the assessee's books are not rejected and payments are made by cheque. Finally, it allowed the deduction for service tax remitted under VCES as per Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by Section 292BB. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s direction for de-novo verification by the AO. The AO was directed to comply with the CIT(A)'s instructions and pass an order within six months.
The Tribunal, in the absence of any contrary material and given the assessee's non-appearance, declined to interfere with the PCIT's order. The PCIT's direction for further verification was upheld.
The Tribunal held that statutory demands of the Revenue stand extinguished consequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT. The Supreme Court judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, confirming that NCLT orders approving resolution plans are binding on statutory authorities.
The Tribunal noted a previous ITAT decision where a similar transaction involving Nouveau Global Ventures Ltd. was not considered a penny stock. The AO in that case had confirmed the shares were not penny stock and did not recommend further appeal.
The Tribunal held that once a company is under CIRP, no proceedings can continue before any court or tribunal as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable in its current format.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted details on the E-portal which were not considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that statutory demands of the Revenue stand extinguished consequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT. The Supreme Court judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, confirming that NCLT orders approving resolution plans are binding on statutory authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with a sufficient opportunity to represent its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the first revision order was void ab initio due to being unsigned. Furthermore, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 proceedings for an issue already decided by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that statutory demands of the Revenue stand extinguished consequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT. The Supreme Court judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, confirming that NCLT orders approving resolution plans are binding on statutory authorities.
The Tribunal held that APITCO Ltd. was not functionally comparable to the assessee due to differences in services offered, ownership structure, and predominant engagement in government initiative projects. Therefore, APITCO should be excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the source of Rs. 48,00,000/-. The assessee was directed to submit all evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with a sufficient opportunity to present its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that statutory demands of the Revenue stand extinguished consequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT. The Supreme Court judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon, confirming that NCLT orders approving resolution plans are binding on statutory authorities.
The Tribunal held that no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was deductible on the payment made to the fair organizers for exhibiting products at an international textile fair. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the first revision order was void ab initio due to being unsigned. Furthermore, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 proceedings for an issue already decided by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO was unjustified in treating the professional expenses as bogus solely based on statements from a search, especially when the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence. The assessee had proved the rendition of services and made payments through account payee cheques after TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction after the jurisdiction had been transferred. The reliance on a High Court decision was distinguished as it did not involve a Section 127 order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of travelling expenses was made without any factual basis on record. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148, a notice under Section 143(2) could not have been issued. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was against the facts on record.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 153C is invalid ab initio if there is no satisfaction note and no incriminating seized material. The assessment framed under this section was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the matter had reached the NCLT, and a moratorium was imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the department to approach the Tribunal after NCLT proceedings conclude.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding closing stock valuation, stating that the assessee's consistent FIFO at cost price method was justified and the AO's change was arbitrary. However, the disallowance of rent for the new premises was upheld as the business and license were not operational there during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the bonus income, though declared in the year the assessee was a resident, was in respect of services rendered when he was a non-resident in Singapore. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to full foreign tax credit for taxes paid in Singapore on this income.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be adjudicated by the correct CIT(A) having the proper jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The approval under Section 151 was found to be valid.
The Tribunal found the genuineness of the MOU and the transaction with FDPL questionable. It directed the Assessing Officer to further inquire into the surrounding circumstances and the profile of FDPL.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for commission expenditure at 3% as unexplained expenditure. Regarding bogus purchases, it held that only the profit element should be taxed, estimating it at 12.5% on the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to rectify defects related to the appeal fee, despite being notified. The assessee can seek restoration upon rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since the satisfaction was recorded after the notice was issued, the jurisdiction assumed was vitiated, rendering the consequent assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the required satisfaction in the assessment order and the show cause notice regarding the exact nature of the default. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not warranted as the assessee discharged its onus. Regarding Section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal found that the assessee had the right to choose the valuation method (DCF) and the AO erred in rejecting it without proper grounds.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as the entire books were in the custody of the revenue department. The CIT(A) had exhaustively examined the VAT returns, which showed all sales and purchases declared, and found no discrepancies.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was wrongly framed under Section 143(3) when it should have been under Section 153C, as the seized material was handed over on 26.03.2019. Furthermore, the addition of Rs. 1.30 crore was deleted as it belonged to a third party (Shri Vikram Soni) and was already offered to tax by him, with no corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note is a mandatory condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since the satisfaction was recorded after the notice was issued, the jurisdiction assumed was vitiated, rendering the consequent assessment orders bad in law.