Loading ITAT cases…
129 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving a proper opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of delay condonation and merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) had also followed these decisions to delete the additions.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the investment of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- should be considered in the hands of the deceased husband as Legal Representative, and the sources for the assessee's share of Rs. 22,00,000/- were explained. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that Form-3 had been issued. However, it allowed the assessee to seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessees deserve a fresh hearing before the CIT(A). The assessees are to appear before the CIT(A) with all relevant evidence and will be given three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were rendered non-est because the underlying assessment order itself was quashed by the CIT(A) for want of a valid satisfaction note. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment because the Transfer Pricing Officer failed to finalize comparables and did not consider that domestic banking rates are not applicable to international transactions, which should be benchmarked using LIBOR rates.
The Tribunal held that the principle of estoppel does not apply in income tax proceedings, and deductions must be decided based on statutory provisions. It further ruled that foreign sales commission expenses are not exigible to TDS if services are not rendered in India.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the Assessing Officer had disallowed expenditure due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessees deserve a fresh hearing before the CIT(A). The assessees are to appear before the CIT(A) with all relevant evidence and will be given three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the ITAT's directions for a remand report on the additional evidence. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance computation did not correctly consider the investments yielding exempt income. The Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income-yielding investments.
The Tribunal found the estimation of profit to be arbitrary and lacking in proper analysis of the IMFL trading business. The addition of Rs. 20 lakhs also lacked detailed discussion.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, considering the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, requiring the assessee to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also restored to the Assessing Officer to examine it in light of the second proviso.
The Tribunal held that if the sale proceeds are deposited in a nationalized bank and fully utilized for acquiring a new asset within the specified period, it would suffice to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 54F. The matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee's exempt income. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and it was unclear if the assessee was properly served. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee could not be served. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if desired.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their Vivad Se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in questioning the business expediency of royalty payments and that previous ITAT decisions supported allowing royalty payments based on agreements approved by the RBI. The matter was remitted for recomputation.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the legal heirs could not be brought on record and were unresponsive. The legal heirs were granted liberty to seek recall of the order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the inability to bring the legal heirs on record and their non-response. The legal heirs were granted liberty to seek recall of the order within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal found no indication of proper service of hearing notices on the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to enable fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any evidence of maintaining books of accounts or relevant documents. Therefore, it did not find it necessary to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order which had already granted relief.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in questioning the business expediency of royalty payments and that previous ITAT decisions supported allowing royalty payments based on agreements approved by the RBI. The matter was remitted for recomputation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the agricultural income based on a previous Special Bench ruling. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that generation of electricity is akin to manufacturing and thus eligible for investment allowance under Section 32AC. This decision followed previous rulings by the ITAT and Supreme Court which considered electricity as 'goods'.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts related to the short grant of interest under Section 244A. The assessee was instructed to appear before the AO with necessary details for factual verification.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had overlooked the issue of financial cost deduction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify both depreciation and financial cost claims and decide accordingly.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Departmental Representative conceded to this request.
The Tribunal found that neither party considered relevant preceding or succeeding year profit results. Therefore, a lump sum estimation of 7.5% of total receipts was deemed just and proper, without setting a precedent.
The Tribunal found no indication that hearing notices were served on the assessee for the ex-parte CIT(A) order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's oversight. Considering the assessee's hardships and senior citizen status, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for a de novo consideration of the case.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of sundry creditors. This was based on the Assessing Officer's favorable remand report to the CIT(A) which indicated the creditors appeared to be genuine.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as a consequence of the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the reassessment. It was held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion without any new material, and the AO lacked independent satisfaction, especially since the case records were not with him at the time of reopening.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of the ex-gratia claim as the AO had filed a favorable remand report. Regarding the unexplained credits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly identified the source as a loan from APSRTC Employees' Thrift and Credit Cooperative Society and had not violated Rule 46A.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the 5% estimation was lenient. It directed the AO to adopt the average of the assessee's declared profits from preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in a previous assessment year (AY 2012-13) by a co-ordinate bench. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts between the two assessment years.
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 liberty to revive if the settlement benefit is denied.