Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the distance of the land from the municipal limits was less than 8 km, making it a capital asset. The co-owner's assessment order did not adjudicate this issue, and the evidence supported the AO's finding.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's order, not containing the mandatory DIN, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's order, not containing the mandatory DIN, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessment year is completed and unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and a previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land purchased in the name of the assessee's wife is eligible for deduction under Section 54B, following various High Court decisions. A dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court does not merge the High Court's order.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations from directors and bank statements, and the AO failed to point out any infirmities. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the differences in stock weight were minor and could be attributed to estimation errors, especially given the large quantities involved. The valuation report was also questioned for not separating diamond weights from gold.
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and a previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and a previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and a previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the matter afresh after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was due to a moratorium granted by the Supreme Court against Unitech and its subsidiaries, preventing proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case due to the moratorium order issued by the NCLT. The Revenue is free to institute a fresh appeal after the completion of CIRP proceedings.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search, especially in cases of completed assessments. This is in line with established High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for the increase in sundry creditors was not sustainable as the creditors were genuine and subsequently paid. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of expenses, finding that they were incurred in connection with a new business line from which revenue was generated in subsequent years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the conversion rate of 0.75 Kg per SCM based on invoices, and accepted the difference as industry-standard transmission loss. However, the issue of miscellaneous expenses was remanded to the AO for examination of evidence.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the conversion rate of 0.75 Kg per SCM, as per invoices, was correct and that the transmission loss was within industry standards. However, the issue of miscellaneous expenses was remanded to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay acceptable and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, considering the additional evidence and obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not complied with the DRP's directions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO to consider the issue afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's cash books, bank statements, and comparative charts, which demonstrated a consistent pattern of cash withdrawals and deposits.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) regarding the conversion rate of 0.75 Kg per SCM, finding the AO's reliance on GAIL's website without considering actual invoices unjustifiable. The matter of miscellaneous expenses was remanded to the AO for examination of evidence.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the conversion rate of 0.75 Kg per SCM, as per invoices, was correct and that the transmission loss was within industry standards. However, the issue of miscellaneous expenses was remanded to the AO for examination of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy should be treated as a capital receipt, following a previous decision by a coordinate bench. It also allowed the deduction for ESOP expenses, deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, and directed that depreciation disallowances should not be considered for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating a 'dumb document' as actual payment without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the conditions for invoking Section 69A were not met.
The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid as it did not quote a valid DIN in its body, contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition. Since the substantive addition was addressed elsewhere, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was no longer necessary.
The Tribunal held that LPSC and Rebate on Power purchased are derived from the eligible business and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. Other issues regarding commission, maintenance charges, and TDS credit were also decided based on precedents or remanded.
The Tribunal held that LPSC and Rebate on Power purchased are derived from the eligible business and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. Other issues regarding commission, maintenance charges, and TDS credit were also decided based on precedents or remanded.
The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid for not quoting a DIN in its body, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the subsequent AO order was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that LPSC and Rebate on Power purchased are derived from the eligible business and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. Other issues regarding commission, maintenance charges, and TDS credit were also decided based on precedents or remanded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscriber were established, and the Revenue did not allege round tripping or cash payments.
The Tribunal held that LPSC and Rebate on Power purchased are derived from the eligible business and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. Other issues regarding commission, maintenance charges, and TDS credit were also decided based on precedents or remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared for multiple hearings and had not sought any adjournment. Based on the evidence of notice service, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the surrender was made on behalf of the group and not solely for the assessee company. Furthermore, the reassessment was not justified as there was no specific finding or direction in previous orders to tax this amount in the assessee's hands, and no supporting seized material was found.
The Tribunal held that the interest income generated on funds provided by the Government of India belongs to the Government and is not the income of the assessee. The assessee had already deposited the entire interest earned into the Consolidated Fund of India.
The Tribunal held that the interest income generated on funds provided by the Government of India belongs to the Government and is not the income of the assessee. The assessee had already deposited the entire interest earned into the Consolidated Fund of India.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to represent their case, with liberty to initiate penalty/prosecution proceedings for future non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the interest income generated on funds provided by the Government of India belongs to the Government and is not the income of the assessee. The assessee had already deposited the entire interest earned into the Consolidated Fund of India.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings and the notice issued by the AO were bad in law because they failed to specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c). Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid for not quoting a DIN in its body, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the subsequent AO order was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194J, not Section 192, apply to payments made to retainer and consultant doctors. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for not deducting TDS under Section 192.
The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid for not quoting a DIN in its body, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the subsequent AO order was also quashed.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the takeover of a partnership firm and its assets. Therefore, the issue of unexplained investment in land was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and lacked reasoning, as it was dismissed in limine without addressing the grounds on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication.
The ITAT held that late deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, beyond the due date prescribed in the respective acts, cannot be allowed as a deduction. This decision followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. It also found the addition and the estimation of profit by the lower authorities to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. It also found the addition and the estimation of profit by the lower authorities to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid as it did not quote a valid computer-generated DIN. Consequently, the subsequent AO order was also quashed, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. It also found the addition and the estimation of profit by the lower authorities to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. It also found the addition and the estimation of profit by the lower authorities to be erroneous.