Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 13 of 19
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate and present evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure substantive justice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate and submit necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is fatal to the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted the divergent stand of the lower authorities regarding the validity of the return filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the limitation period as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits was unjustified, as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence regarding the source of funds from its business operations. The Tribunal also held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the interest component paid under the OTS, as it had been voluntarily disallowed in earlier years and would otherwise lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the variable license fee paid by the assessee is deductible as revenue expenditure. It also held that the provision for interest on outstanding license fees is an ascertained liability and therefore deductible.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable in this case. For Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a recovery of loss or expenditure, or remission or cessation of a trading liability for which a deduction was previously allowed. In this case, the liability was not a trading liability but a capital liability in the nature of a loan received, used to repay another loan. The assessee had not claimed any deduction or expense in respect of this liability in any prior year, nor had it been written back in the profit and loss account. The liability continued to be reflected as outstanding in the assessee's books. The Tribunal further noted that the creditor company being struck off the register of companies does not automatically extinguish its liabilities, and the assessee's arguments regarding the Companies Act provisions and the subsequent date of striking off were valid. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A, as the assessee had not filed any additional evidence before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had correctly distinguished the facts from the case of T.V. Sundram Aiyangar & Sons. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT could not revise the assessment order under Section 263 without first holding that the prior approval obtained under Section 153D for the assessment order was also erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the revision order.
The Tribunal held that there was no misreporting of facts by the assessee, as all relevant documents were furnished. The penalty was levied without clearly specifying which limb of Section 270A was attracted or how its ingredients were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the variable license fee paid by the assessee is deductible as revenue expenditure. It also held that the provision for interest on outstanding license fees is an ascertained liability and therefore deductible.
The Tribunal held that the variable license fee paid by the assessee is deductible as revenue expenditure. It also held that the provision for interest on outstanding license fees is an ascertained liability and therefore deductible.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was bad in law. It followed precedent stating that the revisional authority must also find the prior approval under Section 153D to be erroneous before holding the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible. It set aside the issue of capital gain determination to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing them to examine the facts and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, directing him to examine the evidences furnished by the assessee regarding the unsecured loan and decide the issue afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that while the amendment to Section 10(34) is applicable from AY 2017-18, Section 115BBDA, which provides for special tax rates on dividend income, is applicable only to Individuals, HUFs, and Firms, not Trusts. Therefore, the dividend income remains exempt for the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to TP adjustment on the sale of traded goods, finding that the diamond trading was a one-off transaction and the assessee's segmental information should be accepted. The issue of interest on outstanding receivables was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO and the subsequent transfer pricing adjustment were invalid. This was because clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, which defined specified domestic transactions to include interest payments, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds, allowed certain claims for additional depreciation and other deductions on merits or by following previous orders, and remanded one issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or consequential.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, as notices were sent to a wrong email address, preventing them from being aware of the proceedings. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessment order was also passed without effective representation.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening did not explicitly state any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and material facts. Furthermore, the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was not in accordance with law, as it did not demonstrate an independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee due to improper service of communication. The principle of natural justice was violated, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had concealed the fact of the company's restoration before the NCLT, leading to appeals being filed on the ground of a non-existing company. The Tribunal deprecated this practice, deeming it a concealment of fact and an attempt to mislead.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate and present evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 is unsustainable if the prior approval under Section 153D was not itself found to be erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the revision order.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had concealed the fact of the company's restoration before the NCLT, leading to appeals being filed on the ground of a non-existing company. The Tribunal deprecated this practice, deeming it a concealment of fact and an attempt to mislead.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without considering the material on record and without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits was unjustified, as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence regarding the source of funds from its business operations. The Tribunal also held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the interest component paid under the OTS, as it had been voluntarily disallowed in earlier years and would otherwise lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the CIT(E) for rejection were matters of assessment and not relevant for the grant of registration. Since the assessee was already registered under Section 12AA, and the department had previously examined the genuineness of its activities, these issues should be dealt with during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C cannot be invoked when purchases are already accounted for in the books and their source is not doubted. Since the assessee provided purchase details, sales, and bank statements, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, rendering the grounds raised by the assessee without substance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's specified purposes for accumulation, even if plural, were charitable and part of its objects. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that lack of specific details in Form 10 or the accumulation of funds for multiple charitable purposes does not automatically disentitle the assessee to exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on a true appreciation of facts and evidence. The Revenue failed to provide counter-evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to intervene in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that in similar cases involving the same scrips, the Coordinate Bench had found the transactions to be genuine. The AO himself had acknowledged Alankit Limited as a leading e-Governance Service Provider, and no findings indicated the assessee booked the capital gain in connivance with promoters. The sale of shares through banking channels with STT payment and demat transfer, coupled with the company's dividend history, supported the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that there was a variance in the reasons for initiating penalty proceedings (furnishing inaccurate particulars) and levying the penalty (concealment of income). This variance was considered fatal to the penalty order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence but failed to adjudicate on it, instead sustaining the AO's estimation. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for examination of the evidence and fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination on several issues, including disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA, incorrect demand due to MAT credit and refund adjustments, and interest charged under Section 234A. The AO was directed to verify claims in line with previous orders and circulars.
The Tribunal held that, based on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals should be filed before the ITAT within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer is situated.
The Tribunal held that for Section 69 of the Act to apply, the assessee needs to explain the nature and source of investments. However, in this case, the purchases were made from the books themselves, and there was no allegation that the source of purchases was outside the books or that the books lacked veracity. The Tribunal found that the AO had not independently examined the books of account to allege bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction before initiating proceedings under Section 153C, as required by law. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction before initiating proceedings under Section 153C, as required by law. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for unexplained cash purchases, finding the AO did not follow the PCIT's directions. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding sustained additions for unexplained cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from sales made by the pharmacy, which were permitted to accept demonetized notes under specific government notifications. The Tribunal also noted that making additions under Section 68 would amount to double taxation as the sales were already part of the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it did not demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the variable license fee paid by the assessee is deductible as revenue expenditure. It also held that the provision for interest on outstanding license fees is an ascertained liability and therefore deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and other necessary details. The AO failed to make independent inquiries, and therefore, the addition for unsecured loans was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of license fees was pending before the Supreme Court, and the issue of subscriber verification penalty was covered by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. The issue of discounts to distributors was also covered by earlier decisions.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was obtained from an incompetent authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner) as the notice was issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment action was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons and that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances of excess depreciation and lease rent. It was noted that the entire profit of SEZ is deductible under Section 80IAB, making such disallowances academic.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons and that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances of excess depreciation and lease rent. The Tribunal found that these disallowances did not impact the taxable income due to the 100% deduction under Section 80IAB.