Loading ITAT cases…
503 orders · Page 3 of 11
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 Assessing Officer failed to record the required satisfaction regarding the exact nature of the default in the assessment order and the show cause notice. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify the charge of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity as notices were sent to an incorrect email ID. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property and the joint nature of the bank account.
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 addition was made solely on surmises and conjectures, as the emails only discussed the scope of services and did not confirm actual rendering of consultancy. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
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 assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
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 since the CIT(A) had granted relief by deleting the penalty, and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the First Appellate Order, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
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 assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note is a mandatory pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since the satisfaction was recorded after the notice was issued, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
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 assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
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 assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
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 assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated, rendering the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that relief was granted to the assessee in the giving effect proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
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.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for bogus share transactions, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the genuineness of the sale. The addition of Rs. 1,30,055/- for commission was also sustained due to lack of rebuttal.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salaries for seconded employees was not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and therefore, TDS under Section 195 was not required. The Tribunal also directed the AO to exclude certain comparables and determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) accordingly.
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 held that delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions beyond the statutory due dates are not deductible, upholding the AO's adjustment. However, the disallowance of club expenses was set aside as the tax audit report did not indicate it as disallowable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the issue of security deposits was accepted in previous assessment years. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that there was no categorical finding from the lower authorities regarding the service of mandatory notices for reassessment. Since the record was not produced and the issue of notice service is a question of fact, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-appreciation.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the issue of security deposits was accepted in previous assessment years. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence, considering the assessee's personal circumstances and the nature of the appeal as a continuation of assessment. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a fatal defect. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the source of Rs. 21 lakh from the sale of agricultural land and Rs. 15 lakh from cash withdrawals. The time gap between withdrawals and deposits was not considered fatal in the absence of any adverse material evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were reflected in the books and the goods remained in closing stock, no profit accrued. However, to cover potential revenue leakage, the addition was restricted to 8% of the alleged purchases.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made without sufficient evidence and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to restrict the addition to the profit element.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the assessee was not aggrieved by the assessment order itself, as their returned income was accepted and they received a refund with interest. The ITAT upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any explanation for the cash deposits and did not appear before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, directing that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be applied in addition to Section 69.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. It further held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is part of the compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the land was undisputedly rural agricultural land, and the revenue records clearly indicated agricultural activity. Therefore, it did not fall within the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14) for the purpose of levying long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain its claim before dismissing the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the statement was filed within the extended due date. Therefore, the penalty levied was obliterated.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merit. To uphold natural justice, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the management support services provided by the assessee did not make available technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to the Indian subsidiary, and thus did not qualify as FTS under the DTAA. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue of delay in depositing employee's contribution towards PF & ESI is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P.Ltd. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to TDS credit in the year income is offered, even if deduction occurs later. It also directed the AO to consider the taxability of software sales based on the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remitted to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeal also deserved to be remitted. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the matter afresh after deciding the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-attendance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the association was not running on a profit motive, as it incurred a loss on the sale of ammunition and received government support. Therefore, it is eligible for registration.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, providing no explanation for the additions made.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 263 cannot be initiated or continued in the name of a deceased person without involving the legal heir as per Section 159 of the Act. Issuing notice and passing an order in the name of a dead person is bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed limit and that the assessee had withdrawn their cross-objection. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the association incurred a loss on the sale of ammunition and received government support, indicating no profit motive. Therefore, the association is eligible for registration.
The Tribunal held that the management support services provided by the assessee did not make available technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to the Indian subsidiary, and thus did not qualify as FTS under the DTAA. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for TDS.