Loading ITAT cases…
1,031 orders · Page 20 of 21
The Tribunal held that following a search under Section 132, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148, as per Explanation 2 to Section 148, and not under Section 143(3). Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was invalid.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the additions made were not entirely justified. It directed the AO to re-compute the additions by applying a profit rate of 6% on both alleged bogus purchases and sales.
The Tribunal held that live broadcast of sports events does not constitute royalty. However, non-live broadcast (repeat telecast) can be considered royalty. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to bifurcate the revenue in a 93:7 ratio for live and non-live broadcasts, respectively.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO to verify if the conditions of the first proviso to Section 201(1) are met. If fulfilled, the assessee cannot be held liable for TDS default.
The Tribunal held that organizing golf tournaments is the primary means of achieving the assessee's charitable object of promoting women's golf, and sponsorship receipts are incidental financing for these activities. The CIT(E) had exceeded his jurisdiction by rejecting the renewal based on a change of opinion without any change in the assessee's objects or activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.
The Tribunal held that when a search is conducted, the assessment proceedings should be initiated under Section 148 of the Act, not under Section 143(3). The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) after a search was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than specific incriminating material. There was no actual evidence to support the on-money allegation against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.
The Tribunal held that organizing golf tournaments is the primary means of achieving the assessee's charitable object of promoting women's golf, and sponsorship receipts are incidental financing for these activities. The CIT(E) had exceeded his jurisdiction by rejecting the renewal based on a change of opinion without any change in the assessee's objects or activities.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable when expenditure is recorded in the books of accounts and is supported by documentary evidence. The addition was deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the expenditure was not genuine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by filing supporting documents. The Assessing Officer failed to bring on record cogent material to dislodge the assessee's evidence, and no independent enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the genuineness of transactions with M/s Patel Engineering Limited, a listed company. The Tribunal also found no justification for the commission addition.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., held that the 10-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of handing over of documents by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable in law as a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration, the CIT(E) should primarily verify the charitable objects and genuineness of activities, not delve into detailed scrutiny of fund application like an Assessing Officer. Minor deviations in fund utilization should be dealt with at the assessment stage.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., held that the 10-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of handing over of documents by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude most of the comparable companies but conditionally included one, R Systems International Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance. However, the ITAT ruled that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are part of operating costs and directed the TPO to recalculate accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained as additional evidence was accepted without the AO's comments and verification, as required by law. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that since no addition was made to the assessee's income, the assessee could not be considered an aggrieved party. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not accept additional evidence and the AO had not fully verified the documents submitted. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the sanction granted under Section 151 without proper signing and being undated is invalid. Consequently, the Assessing Officer did not assume valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) is not applicable to companies. It also noted that rural agricultural land is not a capital asset, and the compensation is not taxable as capital gains or business income.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude most of the comparable companies but conditionally included one, R Systems International Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance. However, the ITAT ruled that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are part of operating costs and directed the TPO to recalculate accordingly.
The Tribunal followed a precedent where similar loans, repaid before the notice under Section 148, were considered genuine. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, all other issues on merits became academic.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While upholding the CIT(A)'s action in principle, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider all grounds, including the second round assessment order.
The Tribunal held that natural justice requires an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing an order against an assessee. Therefore, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's submissions and documents were not considered by the lower authorities, the case should be remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic. It held that dismissing the appeal without considering merits was unsustainable and remitted the case back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps when an ex-parte order is passed. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) to section 92BA of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, meant that the provision was to be considered as if it never existed. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment based on this section was invalid and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents were not 'dumb documents' as they contained verifiable details and were found at the premises of a co-owner. The presumption under Section 132(4A) read with Section 292C of the Act was applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent inquiry, as evidenced by copy-pasted reasons and reliance on the Investigation Wing's report. The Tribunal found no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the limited scrutiny scope without proper conversion to complete scrutiny, as per CBDT instructions. The CIT(A)'s order deleting these additions was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal and the assessee's appeal and cross-objection were rendered infructuous due to the prior quashing of the Section 263 order. Consequently, all were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable if no additions are made on the grounds that led to the reopening. Therefore, the impugned reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable. This was because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition to the income based on the specific reason for reopening, rendering the entire reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is a fatal defect, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction legally invalid. Participation in proceedings does not cure the complete absence of such a mandatory notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide on the admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A and did not dispose of the application properly. The CIT(A) also did not provide a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the violation of natural justice and the need for proper adjudication, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal and the assessee's appeal and cross-objection were rendered infructuous due to the prior quashing of the Section 263 order. Consequently, all were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to specify which limb of Section 270A(9) was attracted for levying penalty on account of misreporting of income. The penalty order was found to be arbitrary.