Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to FOWC were not sustainable as the payee had declared income and paid tax, and the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Disallowances for FOM were deleted as the chargeable sum was negative. Disallowances for bank guarantee commission were also deleted, following a prior ITAT ruling that Section 194H did not apply.
The Tribunal held that offshore supplies are not taxable in India as the title to the goods passed outside India. It also found the allocation of receipts towards FTS to be irrational and without basis, and that the alleged PE was not involved in the offshore supply.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to FOWC were not sustainable as the payee had declared income and paid tax, and the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Disallowances for FOM were deleted as the chargeable sum was negative. Disallowances for bank guarantee commission were also deleted, following a prior ITAT ruling that Section 194H did not apply.
The Tribunal decided that the selection of certain comparables by the TPO was debatable and directed the AO to re-examine the working capital adjustment claim. It also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on management fees was unsustainable, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to FOWC were not sustainable as the payee had declared income and paid tax, and the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Disallowances for FOM were deleted as the chargeable sum was negative. Disallowances for bank guarantee commission were also deleted, following a prior ITAT ruling that Section 194H did not apply.
The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's contention that the due date should be the date of actual salary disbursement and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following previous precedents in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding Section 14A disallowances.
The Tribunal allowed deduction for employee PF/ESI contributions paid one day late when the due date fell on a holiday. For other delayed contributions, the issue of whether the due date is based on salary disbursement month or calendar month was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish evidence to prove the actual investment made in the immovable property. The matter was restored to the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's contention that the due date should be the date of actual salary disbursement and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine. This violated the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is crucial and that the PCIT should have decided the issue of jurisdiction at the outset. Both parties agreed to remand the matter back to the PCIT for a fresh decision on all issues, including jurisdiction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of credit entries to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing them to examine the bank accounts and apply an 8% net profit rate on the actual credit entries. For the second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's health issues.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds and without certainty of notice service. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a voluminous paper book containing documents, despite the CIT(E)'s remark about non-production. To ensure justice, the issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the entire appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order uninfluenced by the earlier order.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is crucial and that the PCIT should have decided the issue of jurisdiction at the outset. Both parties agreed to remand the matter back to the PCIT for a fresh decision on all issues, including jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that a subsequent order from the Income Tax Settlement Commission regarding the assessee's husband's income disclosure could have a bearing on the penalty proceedings against the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vitiated due to the AO's failure to strike off irrelevant portions and specify the offense. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the penalty proceedings were deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vitiated due to the AO's failure to strike off irrelevant portions and specify the offense. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the penalty proceedings were deemed illegal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that payments for EDC to HUDA are in the nature of statutory fees and not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, no demand under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that payments for EDC to HUDA are in the nature of statutory fees and not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, no demand under Section 201(1)/201(1A) was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the provision for the 'Shahenshah Scheme' was a contractual liability and not a contingent one. Following its own previous decisions on identical issues for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record any satisfaction or provide reasons for disagreeing with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance. Since the exempt income was from investments in a subsidiary, attributing expenses was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue of credit entries to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing them to examine the bank accounts and apply an 8% net profit rate on the actual credit entries. For the second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's health issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations and bank details for most applicants, and the Assessing Officer had not controverted the net worth of the applicants. However, for two unconfirmed parties, the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that purchase returns, whether from the current or earlier year, cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Furthermore, since the purchase return was not debited to the Profit and Loss Account, it could not be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish any conclusive evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The assessee's non-compliance throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings was noted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations and bank details for most applicants, and the Assessing Officer had not controverted the net worth of the applicants. However, for two unconfirmed parties, the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the DDT payable by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is governed by Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, and not the rates specified in the DTAA. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim a refund of DDT based on DTAA provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations and bank details for most applicants, whose net worth was also established. However, for two unconfirmed parties, the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because it failed to quote the mandatory Computer Generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal held that salary income earned for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India as per Article 15(1) of the India-Korea DTAA, even if paid by an Indian employer. The income offered by the assessee for the period of stay in India was also not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations and bank details for most applicants. The addition was sustained only for the amounts received from two unconfirmed parties.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The limitation period for passing the penalty order should be reckoned from the date the AO initiated proceedings by recommending to the JCIT.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by making an addition on a new source (cash deposits) without issuing a show-cause notice to the assessee. The CIT(A) travelled beyond the directions of the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The limitation period for passing the penalty order should be reckoned from the date the AO initiated proceedings by recommending to the JCIT.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by making an addition on a new source (cash deposits) without issuing a show-cause notice to the assessee. The CIT(A) travelled beyond the directions of the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the appeal.
The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in identical cases, held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a key factor.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in identical cases, held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a key factor.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification of credit card payments directly from the bank. The AO is to confront the information to the assessee and decide afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, considering the cash deposits as an integral part of the trading business and noting that the assessee had broadly justified the source of deposits as recycled withdrawals. The Tribunal also acknowledged the small scale of the business.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding a lack of opportunity to justify the cash deposits. The CIT(A) did not properly deal with the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.