Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 143(3) was not valid as it should have been made under Section 153C, given that it was based on materials from a third-party search. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as notices may not have been properly served. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS application fails.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10 is a curable defect, especially when the form was uploaded before the assessment order was framed and was available on the Income Tax Portal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 11 of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO could not resort to a reverse mechanism to determine disallowable amounts and that the CIT(A) had rightly adjudicated the issue based on facts. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are beyond the six-year period permissible for reopening assessments from the date of recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 60 Lacs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent inquiry by the AO. Relying on previous co-ordinate bench decisions with similar facts and evidence, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned additions.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition on sundry creditors, finding that the AO's remand report accepted their genuineness. The Tribunal also directed the AO to restrict the estimated net profit rate to 3.5% based on preceding and succeeding assessment years.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own cases and by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income tax proceedings cannot be initiated in the name of a dead person. Since the AO was aware of the death and proceeded with notices and assessment in the deceased's name, the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue committed errors in making additions for capitation fees and cash loans/interest. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, directing deletion of additions, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s deletions.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue committed errors in making additions for capitation fees and cash loans/interest. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, directing deletion of additions, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s deletions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor by providing bank statements and other relevant documents. The Tribunal also found that the AO had made an ad hoc disallowance of travelling expenses without rejecting the books of account.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be entirely ruled out. Furthermore, it was observed that the impugned lower appellate order did not effectively comply with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates the framing of points of determination followed by detailed adjudication. In light of these observations and in the larger interest of justice, the ITAT deemed it appropriate to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's application to settle the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) for a debatable issue, especially when the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services was pending. The disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) was set aside.