Loading ITAT cases…
373 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it reasonable to determine income at 8% of the cash deposits, considering the nature of the assessee's small-scale footwear business and the evidence provided. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed with reference to additions made under normal provisions when the tax liability is computed under Section 115JB, especially for assessment years prior to the amendment of Section 271(1) by Explanation-4.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence, considering Indian customs regarding 'streedhan' and the assessee's high financial status. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that payments of EDC to HUDA are effectively payments to the State Government, and therefore, TDS provisions are not applicable. Previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench on identical issues were followed.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive extract was a mere proposal and not evidence of a transaction, and the AO's arbitrary splitting of additions was unsustainable. Regarding expenditures, the Tribunal found contradictory reasoning by the AO and CIT(A) and inclined to allow the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive extract was a mere proposal and not evidence of a transaction, and the AO's arbitrary splitting of additions was unsustainable. Regarding expenditures, the Tribunal found contradictory reasoning by the AO and CIT(A) and inclined to allow the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive extract was a mere proposal and not evidence of a transaction, and the AO's arbitrary splitting of additions was unsustainable. Regarding expenditures, the Tribunal found contradictory reasoning by the AO and CIT(A) and inclined to allow the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a Supreme Court order imposing a moratorium on all proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The appeal can be revived upon final judgment from the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of the impugned land is exigible to capital gains tax. Therefore, the order of the Principal CIT invoking Section 263 was found to be correct and no interference was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to furnish Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and non-furnishing does not automatically lead to denial of FTC. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the FTC claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance and lack of interest. The additions and disallowances made by the lower authorities were upheld based on the available material.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to furnish Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and non-furnishing does not automatically lead to denial of FTC. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the FTC claim.
The Tribunal held that the pen drive extract was a mere proposal and not evidence of a transaction, and the AO's arbitrary splitting of additions was unsustainable. Regarding expenditures, the Tribunal found contradictory reasoning by the AO and CIT(A) and inclined to allow the assessee's ground.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of relocation expenses for seconded employees to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment for interest on delayed receivables, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly examined the issue of capital gains and the Section 54 exemption claim. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was based on a hyper-technical approach, and since the basic conditions of Section 54 were met, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made on a protective basis using the BLT for AMP expenses is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sony Ericsson. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the protective addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed directly before the ITAT without exhausting the remedy of appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal declined to admit the appeal at the threshold.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry into the share transactions, including obtaining contract notes and bank statements, and had accepted the assessee's claim based on the available evidence. The PCIT's revision was based on post-assessment investigations not confronted to the assessee, and the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest and the addition of cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources, finding that the assessee failed to provide any credible evidence or explanation. The grounds regarding violation of natural justice were also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence, considering the assessee's affluent status, societal customs regarding 'streedhan', and the long duration of marriage. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of relocation expenses for seconded employees to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment for interest on delayed receivables, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the ITAT's directions by merely repeating the addition without proper examination. For the second addition, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by making a new addition not part of the original assessment or the prior appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessment status of co-owners and to inquire from the sister-in-law about the purchase of agricultural land by the deceased brother using the assessee's sale consideration. If confirmed, the AO is to allow exemption under Section 54.
The Tribunal restored the issue of cash sales to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing verification of evidence and allowing opportunity to the assessee. It also remanded the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for verification of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which extended the limitation period, was prospective. Therefore, the order passed by the AO was barred by the original limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, especially since the delay was attributed to reasons beyond the assessee's control and the initial assessment had no tax demand. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as deduction, following a Special Bench decision and High Court affirmation. Regarding undisclosed income, the Tribunal found that the relevant CBDT notification was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that cash belonging to companies not operating from the searched premises could not be considered as found from the assessee's premises. The addition was restricted to the amount attributable to such non-operating concerns.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowances were made based on the tax audit report, which was subsequently revised. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the JAO for verification of the payments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that cash belonging to companies not operating from the searched premises could not be considered as found from the assessee's premises. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 2,45,262/-.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational addition leading to the penalty was deleted, the penalty order had no basis. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because it should have been framed under Section 153A/153C of the Income Tax Act, given that the assessment was based on information gathered from search and seizure proceedings of third parties. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Vikram Singh Bhatia.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est and deserved to be quashed as they were issued without quoting the DIN in the body of the order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est and deserved to be quashed as they were issued without quoting the DIN in the body of the order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est and deserved to be quashed as they were issued without quoting the DIN in the body of the order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been passed because the DIN was not quoted in the body of the assessment order itself, as required by the circular. The subsequent generation of a DIN and intimation letter was considered inconsequential.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was validly issued, and the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by not proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est and deserved to be quashed as they were issued without quoting the DIN in the body of the order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal ruled that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments under section 153A.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Common Area Maintenance Agreement and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's instruction not to press the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed.