Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 7 of 18
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- from the addition, as this part of the payment was considered substantiated by the assessee and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, the balance addition of Rs.34,50,000/- was upheld. The second appeal regarding Rs.18,00,000/- was dismissed as the assessee failed to discharge her onus.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- from the addition, as this part of the payment was considered substantiated by the assessee and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, the balance addition of Rs.34,50,000/- was upheld. The second appeal regarding Rs.18,00,000/- was dismissed as the assessee failed to discharge her onus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It noted the possibility of communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(E)'s order and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering potential communication gaps.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions on grounds not covered by the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal relied on CBDT instructions and case law to support its decision that such actions were beyond the AO's authority.
The Tribunal held that the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer determines the territorial jurisdiction. Relying on the Tribunal's Standing Order and a Supreme Court decision, the Delhi benches were found to lack jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer determines the territorial jurisdiction. Relying on the Tribunal's Standing Order and a Supreme Court decision, the Delhi benches were found to lack jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not based on any incriminating material seized during the search. Following judicial consistency and a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that considering the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, it was appropriate to set aside the appeal.
The Tribunal directed the AO to take the same benchmarking for interest on loans as accepted by the Revenue in subsequent years, applying the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow working capital adjustment as mandated by the rules.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing potential communication gaps due to virtual hearings and lack of detailed adjudication in the lower order, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not file submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. A direction was given to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue based on facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the AO and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the unit as independent and new in the first year, the deduction under Section 10AA cannot be denied in subsequent years. The Tribunal also noted there is no provision in Section 10AA to bifurcate the exemption.
The Tribunal noted that while the loans were treated as unexplained, they prima facie indicated unaccounted turnover in the assessee's sugar trading business. Consequently, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3,95,000/- was deemed appropriate, with the rest of the addition being relieved.
The tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings given the assessee's failure to appear, provide submissions, or rebut the evidence on record. Specifically, the tribunal upheld the additions relating to bogus purchases due to unproved transactions, sundry creditors where the supplier's existence was doubtful, and unexplained capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper service of notice under Section 148. Since the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio, any additions made therein, and consequently any penalty levied, could not survive.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the unit as independent and new in the first year, the deduction under Section 10AA cannot be denied in subsequent years. The Tribunal also noted there is no provision in Section 10AA to bifurcate the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper service of notice under Section 148. Since the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio, any additions made therein, and consequently any penalty levied, could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reassessment proceedings can be challenged even when the appeal is against an order passed under Section 263. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, and void orders cannot attain finality.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reassessment proceedings can be challenged in appeals against orders passed under Section 263. It referred to various High Court and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or created by consent.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representative for numerous hearings and that the matter was pending before the NCLT. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that subscription receipts do not constitute 'royalty' under the DTAA as they merely provide the use of copyrighted articles and do not involve the exploitation of a copyright. Consequently, these receipts are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to include 'Deepali Design and Exhibits P. Ltd.' as a comparable and exclude 'Just Dial Private Ltd.'. The issue of interest on delayed receivables was restored to the TPO for fresh examination, following a coordinate bench's order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee's claim for exemption under section 12A. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's registration and compliance with conditions for exemption.
The Tribunal held that additions for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 were not supported by incriminating material seized during the search and thus deleted them. For AY 2018-19, the additions were sustained as they were based on incriminating material, but a lumpsum deduction of Rs. 1 lakh was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions of sale of shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd. were genuine, relying on previous High Court and Tribunal judgments. The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as it was issued to a wrong address, despite the Assessing Officer being aware of the correct address. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the 'Force of Attraction' rule was not applicable, following its own previous decisions. However, for specific projects (UJVNL and LII), the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination due to incomplete documentation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, especially the bogus purchases. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of forex derivative losses by following the High Court's decision. It also allowed the ground regarding notional interest on delayed receivables, stating the amendment to Section 92B was not applicable and no interest was charged from non-AEs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, especially the bogus purchases. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
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 the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of imparting education were charitable in nature and not business. The AO failed to establish any violation of the proviso to section 2(15) r.w. section 13(8) of the Act, and the disallowance of exemption was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on admissions during surveys without corroborating evidence or subsequent verification. The assessee's explanations for loose papers were accepted, and the pressure exerted to obtain the surrender was noted as a violation of CBDT instructions.