Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 5 of 17
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not technical services. Since the services were rendered outside India, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative as defined by law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at this stage.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions, including the Tehsildar's report and the claim for deduction under Section 54B, and grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that there was a denial of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the divergent views on bogus purchases and the nature of the assessee's business, decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had made a definitive finding on whether the assessee's activities were charitable or commercial. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in using the figures from the beginning of the financial year for valuation when the shares were allotted on the last day of the year. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation. The disallowance of the fee paid to ROC as capital expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the subsequent provisional registration granted to the assessee. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of this registration.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra). However, the Tribunal also noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had not examined other crucial aspects such as the genuineness of the activities, the charitable objects, and the commencement of the trust's activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to re-examine the application de novo, without denying registration based on the irrevocability clause issue, but with the liberty to scrutinize other aspects. The assessee was to be provided with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the revenue but also noted a coordinate bench's decision to restore similar matters to the AO for factual verification. The Tribunal decided to follow the latter approach.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under section 143(1) for late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI is valid. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services and the Delhi High Court's decision in Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under section 143(1) for late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI is valid. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services and the Delhi High Court's decision in Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited.
The Tribunal found the 8% profit rate to be high and directed the addition to be restricted to 4% of the total purchases, considering the assessee's average GP and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed due to non-submission of required documents. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the assessee's ownership of unexplained money or the actual incurrence of commission expenses. The Tribunal found that the transactions were recorded in the books and made through banking channels.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 958 on account of the smallness of the amount involved. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the order does not set any precedent as the issues were not decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law as the addition made was not in line with the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.
The Tribunal found the 8% profit rate to be high and directed the addition to be restricted to 4% of the total purchases, considering the assessee's average GP and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) as the amounts were written off in the books of account and income was offered for tax. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and that the CIT(E) failed to consider relevant facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's case and decided to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 4.47 lakhs. The assessee succeeded on her sole ground.
The tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the CIT(A) drew unilateral conclusions without confronting the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and without applying its mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and that the CIT(E) failed to consider relevant facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without applying its mind and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that a similar appeal had already been heard by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the current appeal was considered a duplicate.
The ITAT found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than specific incriminating material. The tribunal noted a lack of actual evidence to support the on-money allegation against the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications without proper consideration of facts and non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s 8% profit estimation was high. Considering the assessee's average GP of preceding and succeeding years, the Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 2% of total purchases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) interpreted the term 'education' too narrowly, ignoring available judicial precedents. The assessee was given an opportunity to present all facts to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee's non-compliance was due to compelling reasons and not intentional. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the contingent liabilities, there was no basis for making a disallowance. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the cash deposits were part of the gross turnover including GST, as supported by GST returns and bank statements. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had explained the difference as attributable to the GST component.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to 4% of the total undisclosed purchases, considering the assessee's average GP rate and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee to submit documentary evidence for the Section 54B deduction. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective because the defects pointed out by the registry were not removed. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration after rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had made a definitive finding on whether the assessee's activities were charitable or commercial. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.