Loading ITAT cases…
486 orders · Page 2 of 10
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed submissions and documents. The CIT(Appeals) had incorrectly stated that no submissions were received and had sustained an addition without considering the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. However, liberty was granted to re-institute the appeals if exceptions to the circular were met.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal without proper verification and that the assessee's books were not produced. The Tribunal also referenced a coordinate bench decision regarding website development expenses being treated as intangible assets eligible for depreciation.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial and not technical services as per Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not rectify the defects in the appeal and did not appear for any of the hearings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as defective.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective. The tribunal noted that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunities to rectify the defects but failed to do so.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of INR 5,13,400/- on account of cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of these deposits.
The Tribunal considered the application filed by the assessee's counsel seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The application detailed that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and consequently, the demands raised by the Assessing Officer were cancelled. An outstanding demand of Rs. 1000/- was also paid. Given these submissions, the Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the substantive issue of entitlement to relief under sections 11 and 12, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS.
The CIT(A) correctly accepted the additional evidence and found that the source of investment was duly explained as money transferred from the assessee's husband in the USA. The tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance. It noted that the AO failed to record satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D and that sufficient own funds were available for investment, aligning with Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions related to share capital and share premium as no amounts were credited during the year. For unsecured loans, a partial addition was confirmed, but the majority was deleted. The additions for sundry creditors were also deleted as sufficient evidence was provided.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to provide valid explanations and substantiate its claims regarding purchases. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of old stock of uniforms was a valid adjustment to stock value. It also found that mess expenses were correctly accounted for as deducted by clients and recovered from employees. For printing and stationery, the Tribunal noted an error in billing to a group company and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, documentary evidence regarding agricultural income should have been admitted. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after allowing the assessee to furnish evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish deliberate non-compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the loans were received through banking channels and the lenders possessed sufficient own funds, proving their creditworthiness. The sole basis for the addition was the director's statement, not supported by any corroborative material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the offshore supplies were not taxable in India as the assessee did not have a PE in India and the transfer of title occurred outside India. It also held that the receipts from engineering services were not royalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification under Section 154, which enhanced the tax liability, was invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice to the assessee as required by Section 154(3). The prejudice caused by this procedural irregularity is presumed.
The Tribunal held that the interest on FDR was inextricably linked to the project and was a capital receipt. Therefore, it should be reduced from the project cost.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had acquired a legal right in the property in FY 2007-08, evidenced by substantial payments and an agreement to sell. Therefore, the holding period exceeded 36 months, making the capital gains long-term.
The Tribunal held that payments of EDC to HUDA were not in pursuance to any contract between the assessee and HUDA, but rather statutory charges levied by the government for external development. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on such payments.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance for land at Noida and Shahjahanpur, as it was covered by a High Court order. For land at Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that there were bona fide reasons for the delay and that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were generated from legal sources, specifically sales duly recorded in the assessee's books of account, which the AO had not disputed. The Tribunal also noted that payments for purchases were made through banking channels, which the AO had accepted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as the order under challenge was not an appealable order at that stage. The assessee has a remedy to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the reasonable cause provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal was not convincing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the advances and debts were actually written off by the assessee. If found to be written off, they should be allowed as deductions for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the income surrendered was explained as business income from commodity trading and not unexplained money under Section 69A. Therefore, the special tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which ruled that the due date for deductibility of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is as per the respective Acts and Section 43B does not apply for AYs prior to 2021-22.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following Supreme Court precedent. It held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without valid reasons or approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned from other co-operative banks is allowable as deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, it disallowed a portion of the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) as the conditions were not fulfilled.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following Supreme Court precedent. It held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without valid reasons or approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own valuation for the one determined by the assessee using a prescribed method like DCF, especially when the valuation report was vetted by a bank for loan sanction. The rejection of the valuation report was found unjustified.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding the powers of appellate authorities. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without proper justification for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid due to the AO's non-application of mind and numerous factual errors in the reasons recorded. The approval granted by higher authorities under Section 151 was also found to be mechanical, and the DRP failed to address the objections properly.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following Supreme Court precedent. It held that assessment orders issued without the mandatory DIN, and without valid reasons or approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following Supreme Court precedent. It held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without valid reasons or approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents. It held that assessment orders issued without a mandatory DIN, and without proper justification or approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal noted that a DVO report, obtained later in the wife's case (co-owner), valued the property at Rs. 9,00,00,000, matching the assessee's sale consideration. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to decide afresh based on this DVO report.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal. The assessee's failure to produce books of account and supporting evidence for claimed expenses was a key factor in the decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and DRP failed to provide substantive evidence to prove the assessee was a conduit company or engaged in impermissible tax avoidance. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to treaty benefits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to refer the property valuation to the DVO for determining the fair market value and to allow the set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss, as it appeared to have been accepted in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from providing telecommunication services through satellite are not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and that of Inmarsat Global Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly appreciated the assessee's plea that the cash deposits were business receipts from selling SIM cards and mobile recharges. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.