Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had dismissed the applications for non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(E) to be considered afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the death of the CA's father, while potentially affecting participation in revision proceedings, did not constitute a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. No other reasonable cause was provided for the delay.
The Tribunal considered the application filed by the assessee requesting the withdrawal of the appeal. The application clearly stated that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and had obtained a Certificate in Form 3 from the Designated Authority. The assessee also confirmed the deposit of tax and eligibility for refund under the scheme. Noting the contents of this application, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the PCIT were already decided in favour of the assessee on merits by higher authorities. It also found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that higher depreciation on factory electrical fittings was justified, as accepted in a prior assessment year. It also held that personal use of telephone and vehicle expenses cannot be visualized in the hands of a corporate assessee, as it would be perquisites for directors.
The Tribunal held that since two of the three disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty itself could not survive. For the remaining issue, the Tribunal found the assessee's claim for loss on obsolete stationery to be bona fide, especially considering the bank's amalgamation and supporting documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law because the notice was issued after four years without a finding of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment notice and consequent order were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of technical know-how payments, following its own prior decisions. The issue of gratuity payment was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The levy of education cess was decided in favor of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. Following a previous decision with similar facts, the Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the methodology of calculating the default, specifically regarding the due date of deposit based on salary disbursement, had not been examined by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order declaring a moratorium under the IBC Code 2016 prohibits the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that even if a business is dormant due to market conditions, a corporate entity must incur expenses to maintain its existence and operational readiness. The standard deduction for house property income does not cover these business-related expenses.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, following its own previous decisions. It held that inter-unit transfers should be valued at market price, export proceeds realization time limits are not applicable to SEZ units as per RBI circulars, and no disallowance on foreign travel expenses can be made if Fringe Benefit Tax has been paid.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of fair play and natural justice, the assessee deserves an opportunity of hearing before the CIT(Exemption). The impugned orders were set aside, and the issues were restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of fair play and natural justice, the assessee deserves an opportunity of hearing before the CIT(Exemption). The impugned orders were set aside, and the issues were restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, through HUDA are effectively payments to the State Government. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine the assessee's contention regarding the calculation of due dates for deposit based on salary disbursement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds were covered by its own case for a previous assessment year. It ruled in favour of the assessee regarding deductions under Section 80IC and 10A, disallowance of foreign travel expenses, and ESIC claims, setting aside the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee not to remit the TDS amount on time due to the interim order from the Madras High Court. Therefore, the authorities ought not to have charged the interest.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, following its own previous decisions. It held that inter-unit transfers should be valued at market price, export proceeds realization time limits are not applicable to SEZ units as per RBI circulars, and no disallowance on foreign travel expenses can be made if Fringe Benefit Tax has been paid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the prevailing COVID-19 situation and nationwide lockdown. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient material to prove the purchases were bogus, especially since payments were made through banking channels and the assessee provided supporting documents. The cross-objections were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily declared the interest income in the return filed under Section 148 and paid the due taxes, and considering the bonafide of the assessee, the imposition of penalty for concealment of income was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee did not meet the conditions for applying the PCM due to project uncertainties and lack of approvals. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that expenses claimed in the P&L account were normal business expenses and not capital in nature.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's ground regarding the delayed payment of provident fund and ESI, reversing the CIT(A)'s deletion. For other grounds, the Tribunal did not find fault with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive addition for commission income was already completed in the hands of the beneficiaries, no further protective addition could be made in the hands of the assessee company. The Tribunal followed a previous precedent with similar facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive addition for commission income was already completed in the hands of the beneficiaries, no further protective addition could be made in the hands of the assessee company. The Tribunal followed a previous precedent with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the cash sales made by the assessee, as the stock records and cash book were accepted by the AO. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The tribunal held that the date of salary payment should be considered for calculating the delay in EPF/ESI deposit. It also ruled that the late filing of Form 67 is a procedural delay and not a mandatory requirement for claiming foreign tax credit. The TDS credit should not be denied for technical reasons if reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was invalid as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence of creditors, and the AO failed to conduct further verification. However, the estimated trading addition was upheld due to the non-production of books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that if the assessment order is annulled, the penalty levied based on that assessment order must also fall. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily declared the interest income in the return filed under Section 148 and paid the due taxes, and considering the bonafide of the assessee, the imposition of penalty for concealment of income was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash deposits through its opening balance and substantial cash withdrawals, which were consistent with its business prudence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to the allocation of advertisement & publicity expenses and foreign exchange fluctuation loss, following previous decisions. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted. However, the issue of Fringe Benefit Tax in computing book profits was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient material to prove the purchases were bogus, especially since payments were made through banking channels and the assessee provided supporting documents. The cross-objections were partly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive addition for commission income was already completed in the hands of the beneficiaries, no further protective addition could be made in the hands of the assessee company. The Tribunal followed a previous precedent with similar facts.
The tribunal held that the date of salary payment should be considered for calculating the delay in EPF/ESI deposit. It also ruled that the late filing of Form 67 is a procedural delay and not a mandatory requirement for claiming foreign tax credit. The TDS credit should not be denied for technical reasons if reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the contribution to the trade association was an allowable business expenditure. It also found that the loans were adequately explained and the source of funds was proved. The alleged cash difference was attributed to a filtered version of the cash book.
The Tribunal estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 15 lakhs, considering the consistent treatment in previous years. The addition on account of the property transaction was cancelled as it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the cash balance was built up from opening cash and significant withdrawals from bank accounts prior to demonetization, which was supported by audited financial statements and bank records.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents and proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. It also found that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was not justified as the share premium was not excessive based on the NAV method.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily declared the interest income in the return filed under Section 148 and paid the due taxes, and considering the bonafide of the assessee, the imposition of penalty for concealment of income was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing details of investors, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of transactions. Regarding Section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal found that the share premium was justified based on the Net Asset Value method, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts. However, it directed that the special tax rate under Section 115BBE should not be applied to the surrendered income for the assessment year in question, as the provision was not applicable. Normal tax rates should be applied.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of specified shares in the sale deed for co-owned property, the shares are presumed to be equal. Therefore, taxing 50% of the notional rent in the assessee's hands was justified.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order is considered issued when it leaves the control of the assessing officer. Since the order was dispatched after the limitation period, it is barred by limitation and therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of specified shares in the sale deed for co-owned property, it must be presumed that the shares are equal. Therefore, taxing 50% of the notional rent in the assessee's hands was justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's doubts were not based on evidence and that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry. The PCIT incorrectly directed additions instead of allowing the AO to adjudicate after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition for unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the opening cash balance exceeded the cash found, and the assessee's cash book was not doubted.