Loading ITAT cases…
958 orders · Page 16 of 20
The Tribunal found that the assessees claimed to have filed replies and sought adjournments due to counsel's busy schedule. The Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their cases before the CIT(E) with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessees claimed to have filed replies and sought adjournments due to counsel's busy schedule. The Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their cases before the CIT(E) with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessees claimed to have filed replies and sought adjournments due to counsel's busy schedule. The Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their cases before the CIT(E) with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed ex-parte orders without independent findings. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of excess depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, allowing the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 14A and Section 80IA disallowances were upheld in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty on export sales requires further factual determination by the Assessing Officer regarding the situs of contract execution and where such income is taxed. The issue of management fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ruling. The direction regarding reimbursement of expenses was held to be beyond the DRP's power.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted due inquiries regarding loans, advances, and finance costs, issuing specific queries. Since the AO had examined the issue and taken a possible view, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted due inquiries regarding loans, advances, and finance costs, issuing specific queries. Since the AO had examined the issue and taken a possible view, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The ITAT found that the NFAC had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's new management was unaware of pending notices due to a change in management and was occupied with statutory compliances. An adjournment request was made, but the order was passed before the extended date.
The Tribunal noted that for AY 2015-16, the AO did not comply with DRP directions regarding depreciation, provision for doubtful debts, CSR, gratuity, bonus, and compensated absence. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that reopening the case based on one reason (cash expenditure) and making additions on a different reason (cash receipt) vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the notice under section 148 and the consequent order under section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening the case based on one reason (cash expenditure) and making additions on a different reason (cash receipt) vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the notice under section 148 and the consequent order under section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening the case based on one reason (cash expenditure) and making additions on a different reason (cash receipt) vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the notice under section 148 and the consequent order under section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A as the facts are identical to a previous assessment year where the deduction was allowed. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was invalid as the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before itself and also before the First Appellate Authority. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE apply from AY 2018-19 onwards, as per the Madras High Court ruling. Applying the unamended rate for the current AY would result in a tax effect below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024.
The Tribunal held that allowing 80G deduction for CSR contributions is not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, citing several judicial precedents. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the doctrine of relating back applies, and the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12 as the final registration was granted for the original application. Capital expenditure incurred for infrastructure was also considered an application of income and allowable.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for unsecured loans, found a double addition in sales, restricted stock shortage addition to profit element, and directed the AO to consider purchase bills and CBDT circular for jewellery additions. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for unsecured loans, found a double addition in sales, restricted stock shortage addition to profit element, and directed the AO to consider purchase bills and CBDT circular for jewellery additions. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for unsecured loans, found a double addition in sales, restricted stock shortage addition to profit element, and directed the AO to consider purchase bills and CBDT circular for jewellery additions. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty on export sales requires further factual determination by the Assessing Officer regarding the situs of contract execution and where such income is taxed. The issue of management fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ruling. The direction regarding reimbursement of expenses was held to be beyond the DRP's power.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were illegal and void. Non-supply of reasons for reopening and issuing notices under Section 148 on April 1, 2021, without following the new reassessment procedure, rendered the assessments invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were illegal and null and void. This was due to the non-supply of reasons for reopening to the assessee and the AO's failure to follow the new reassessment procedure triggered by the late issuance of notices.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the NFAC to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and pass a speaking order on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism. It deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, with directions for the assessee to be vigilant and make requisite compliance.
The Tribunal held that the concept of a virtual service permanent establishment (VSPE) is not contemplated by the India-Canada DTAA. Services rendered virtually without physical presence of employees in India do not constitute a Service PE.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty on export sales requires further factual determination by the Assessing Officer regarding the situs of contract execution and where such income is taxed. The issue of management fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ruling. The direction regarding reimbursement of expenses was held to be beyond the DRP's power.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessments after providing the assessee with seized materials, satisfaction notes, and statements relied upon, ensuring an opportunity for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the bank statement showed only a cash deposit of Rs. 75,000, not the amount alleged by the AO. The CIT(A) had not duly considered the assessee's explanation for this deposit.
The Tribunal agreed that remanding the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment would serve substantive justice. The impugned orders were set aside for both assessment years.
The Tribunal agreed that remanding the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment would serve substantive justice. The impugned orders were set aside for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty on export sales requires further factual determination by the Assessing Officer regarding the situs of contract execution and where such income is taxed. The issue of management fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ruling. The direction regarding reimbursement of expenses was held to be beyond the DRP's power.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty on export sales requires further factual determination by the Assessing Officer regarding the situs of contract execution and where such income is taxed. The issue of management fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ruling. The direction regarding reimbursement of expenses was held to be beyond the DRP's power.
The Tribunal found that the delay, though significant, was due to reliance on a part-time accountant and lacked malafide intent. Considering the provisions for reasonable cause under Section 273B, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunities to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee no longer intends to pursue the appeal as the issues are covered by the concluded MAP. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the issue on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing and order.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the assessee an opportunity to contest the issue on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing and order.