Loading ITAT cases…
238 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the option for the assessee to seek revival if the settlement benefit was denied.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek revival if the settlement benefit under the scheme is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue can seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that ex-parte orders were passed without adequate opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that ex-parte orders were passed without adequate opportunity. While acknowledging the Revenue's point about non-appearance, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable for the assessment years in question, as the relevant statutory provision for such levy came into effect later. The Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the same.
The Tribunal, following a High Court decision, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme outcome is not in their favour.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the excess Section 35D deduction. The lower authorities had correctly calculated the eligible deduction based on the actual capital employed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was with a rider that the cases could be revived if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal was with a rider that the cases could be revived if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not unsustainable as the proviso to Section 147(1) was not applicable. However, the addition made under Section 50C was incorrect as the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the DVO as mandated by Section 50C(2).
The Tribunal, relying on a Madras High Court decision, treated the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The Tribunal also granted liberty to refile the appeals if the scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not requested by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The assessees requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the disproportionate investment and did not examine the assessee's detailed evidence on merits. Therefore, the addition of unexplained share capital was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the non-registration of a lease deed does not mandatorily disallow the impugned relief. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the National Coal Workers Agreement was not statutory and did not override the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the expenditure on electricity provided to employees' residences was correctly treated as a fringe benefit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a constituent of a JV/Consortium that executed infrastructure projects, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT and other courts which held that constituents executing works are entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the National Coal Workers Agreement was not statutory and did not override the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the expenditure on electricity provided to employees' residences was correctly treated as a fringe benefit.
The Tribunal held that the interest adjustment on receivables was based on the assessee's own computation and thus upheld it. However, it ruled that Section 14A disallowance should not be included in the MAT computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the National Coal Workers Agreement was not statutory and did not override the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the expenditure on electricity provided to employees' residences was correctly treated as a fringe benefit.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of profit estimation has been consistently decided at 2% of gross receipts in earlier years for the assessee. It found no material difference in the current assessment years and directed the Assessing Officer to verify who executed the work and recompute income accordingly, without arbitrary estimation.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act that restricts disallowance of expenditure to only reduce net profit to zero. Such a restriction is not permissible under the law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, noting that the assessee was ex parte before the lower authorities, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The assessee will be given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the non-production of a TRC should not prevent the assessee from claiming treaty benefits, especially when sufficient circumstantial evidence is provided. Following previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal allowed the exemption under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The CIT(A) deleted the addition after examining ledger accounts which showed individual payments below the threshold limit. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal as the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the threshold limit was not rebutted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under the India-Austria DTAA is valid, even without a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), if sufficient circumstantial evidence is provided. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not allowed the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the long-term capital gain. In the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to condone the 40-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The issue was remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the indexed cost of acquisition while computing the capital gain. The AO was also directed to re-compute the assessee's income according to his share in the property denovo, in accordance with law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the issue regarding the proportionate assessment in the hands of other vendors.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if the assessee does not request it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of profit on main and sub-contracts, as it followed precedents. The enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was also upheld, subject to verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. Therefore, it was to be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the claimed agricultural income was not substantiated and was not from a genuine source. The income was therefore rightly treated as 'income from other sources' and brought to tax.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s action in principle, acknowledging the jurisdictional argument. However, it directed the assessee to appear before the AO for verification of the ESI/PF disallowance and TDS credit, granting them opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal held that financial crunch is not a valid reason for non-compliance with TDS provisions. The assessee failed to prove any mitigating circumstances for the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the due procedure by not providing the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, despite a request. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to remit the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO is directed to examine the books of account and other documents to be submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of profit estimation has been consistently decided at 2% of gross receipts in earlier years for the assessee. It found no material difference in the current assessment years and directed the Assessing Officer to verify who executed the work and recompute income accordingly, without arbitrary estimation.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order, finding that the AO had already formed an opinion during the original assessment and there was no new information to justify reopening. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to provide material evidence to prove that the sister companies conducted significant activities from the premises. Since the sister companies appeared to be paper entities with no substantial operations, the entire rent and maintenance expenses were attributable to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the partnership firms as benami and assess their income in the assessee's hands, considering the 95% shareholding and the admission of employees acting as nominal partners. The disallowance of interest payments due to non-deduction of TDS was also confirmed.