Loading ITAT cases…
463 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's appeals could not be pursued due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them later.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's appeals could not be pursued due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them later.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) but also acknowledged the right to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the assessee to pay Rs. 5,000 to the PMNRF and granting a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits pertained to the sale of agricultural land by the assessee's relatives, including the primary account holder, Shri Heera Singh. Since the assessee was not a party to the sale and the primary holder was, any inquiry should have been directed at him, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 by the higher authorities was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the entire investment could not be treated as unexplained in the assessee's hands as she had only a 50% share. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for her share of the investment, including agreements to sell plots by her husband and a gift from him.
The ITAT held that the application for transfer of the appeal was not maintainable based on the cited High Court judgment. However, for the ends of justice, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on mistaken data regarding deposit dates. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal further noted that the law declared by the Supreme Court has retrospective effect.
The Tribunal restored the additions made by the AO under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its initial onus. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to interest expenses and undisclosed investment in land.
The Tribunal held that the AO proceeded with the reassessment proceedings on a factually incorrect premise, indicating a lack of application of mind to the available material. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction, as per the Supreme Court ruling. Amounts held in trust, like employee contributions, are subject to this strict condition.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence which was crucial to the matter. It restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination and decision after verifying the new evidence.
The Tribunal found that crucial documents and evidence presented by the assessee were not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A would not be applicable if no exempt income was received or receivable during the previous year. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before finalizing the reassessment order rendered the entire proceedings invalid. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal stated that Section 292BB does not cure the failure to issue a notice, only the failure of service.
The Tribunal held that a difference in perception regarding a transaction does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the claim was not found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the sub-contracting charges received by the assessee are not taxable as FIS in India. The services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian AE, which is a prerequisite for FIS under the treaty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the cause of the difference between Form 26AS and book receipts due to the inclusion of WCT/VAT/Service Tax. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including certificates from contractees, to support their explanation.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is not taxable under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is an accretion to the value of the land and not in the nature of interest. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessments, finding sufficient cause based on discrepancies in Form 26AS. It directed the Assessing Officer to assess income at 8% of the gross receipts shown in Form 26AS, allowing deductions under Chapter VIA and credit for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO by issuing notice under Section 148 was bad in law. The AO had mechanically relied on the Investigation Wing's report without independent application of mind, and the reassessment proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance is justified as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The employee's contribution, once deducted, is deemed income and must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amendment to Section 50C should be given retrospective effect. The Tribunal found that the deal was finalized and part payment was made prior to the increase in stamp duty value.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim that no expenses were incurred for earning exempt income. Following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribing companies. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. The enhancement of income under Section 56(2)(viib) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proof by providing documentary evidence of property sales and cash flow. The Tribunal noted that the revenue accepted the genuineness of these sales in a subsequent assessment year for capital gains calculation.
The Tribunal held that the contribution received for the sinking fund, meant for specific utilization as per contract, should not be added to income, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, the partial disallowance of unverifiable expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal found the addition to be without merit and logic, noting that the AO's initial inquiry into demonetization deposits shifted to profit estimation without proper basis. The Tribunal also highlighted a violation of natural justice as the addition was made without notice.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction, having relied on audit objections and without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also found that the new property was indeed purchased within the permissible period for Section 54 exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue of capitalizing interest on FDRs was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own cases, which were also upheld by the High Court. Regarding share premium, the Tribunal found that the valuation was done as per FMV and the transaction occurred in a prior financial year.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee contributions towards ESIC and EPF beyond the stipulated period is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by mistaking the date of the revised return for the original return. Since the original return was filed within the due date, the claim for carrying forward the current year business loss is allowed.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee contributions towards ESIC and EPF beyond the stipulated period is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee contributions towards ESIC and EPF beyond the stipulated period is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was indeed time-barred as per the proviso to the section. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found that failure to adhere to this time limit renders the assessment order non-est.
The Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 133(6) to a third party was not served due to an incomplete address. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after issuing the notice to the correct address.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated most of its expenses with corroborative documentary evidence, deeming them legitimate business expenditures. However, the disallowance of 50% of petrol and maintenance expenses for the car was sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the additions sustained by the first appellate authority, as the assessee did not appear or provide supporting evidence. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of deposit dates and whether they fall within the grace period. The AO is to decide the issue afresh in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The CIT(A) correctly held that Section 68 is not applicable to opening balances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.