Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed its previous order and allowed the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had not adequately considered the assessee's objections regarding the functional comparability, lack of segmental financials, and R&D activities of the chosen comparables. Therefore, the matter was restored to the DRP for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once the assessment order was passed and issued, any subsequent hearing by the AO would be without authority ('functus officio'). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment solely on this ground was reversed.
The Tribunal remitted issues related to TDS disallowances back to the AO for re-examination based on the assessee's claim that recipients included income in their returns. For cash payments, the Tribunal confirmed some disallowances, remitted others for further inquiry, and confirmed one. Demurrage charges disallowance was upheld due to lack of evidence, while PF disallowance was remitted for verification of payment before return filing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the source of funds in the assessee's bank account was explained and routed through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not doubt the source of funds but rather the expenditure, and that the assessee had provided supporting documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee might not possess evidence for construction costs after 18 years. Therefore, the issue of property valuation for construction as of 2003 was remanded to the Assessing Officer to obtain a report from the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not sustainable because the time provided for compliance was insufficient, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, Section 273B was attracted, and the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for a different AY was decided by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, considering the concept of real income and directing the assessee to substantiate the revised return with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, where it was established that remittances through banking channels by non-residents cannot be taxed in India if the source is explained. The Revenue failed to prove the amount was unexplained income.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for a different AY was decided by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, considering the concept of real income and directing the assessee to substantiate the revised return with evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the Supreme Court declared the sale transaction null and void and the original owner a land grabber, the assessee had no title to the property. Therefore, the addition of long-term capital gains under Section 50C was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that even if an assessee has mixed religious and charitable objects, it is eligible for registration in respect of charitable activities if separate books of account are maintained. The issue was remanded to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was contradictory regarding the appearance of the assessee and the consideration of written submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing effective opportunities of hearing.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Section 80-IA(4) deduction, citing judicial consistency. However, for the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that certain R&D related expenses like professional charges, rent, and electricity/maintenance could be allowed as regular business expenditure under Section 37(1). For Section 14A, the issue of disallowance was remitted back to the AO to examine the availability of own funds for investments.
The Tribunal held that the provision for gas pricing was an ascertained liability and thus allowable. However, the issue of unexplained cash deposits required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemptions). The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate its case with documentary evidence.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Section 80-IA(4) deduction, citing judicial consistency. However, for the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the provision for gas pricing was an ascertained liability and thus allowable. However, the issue of unexplained cash deposits required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of speculation loss as it was not pressed. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed that it should not exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the cases if the scheme benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing reasonable causes and the principle of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of speculation loss as it was not pressed. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed that it should not exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. It upheld the disallowance of Section 80IB(10) deduction for certain housing blocks due to non-completion within the stipulated deadline.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the consent terms and sale deed did not establish the assessee as the owner of the property for the purpose of offering capital gains. The sale consideration was acknowledged as received by another entity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (AO/TPO) should have considered the assessee's internal comparable transactions and segmental financials for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The working capital adjustment was also directed to be restricted to transactions with AEs.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not question the correctness of brought forward figures from earlier assessment years when computing MAT. The CIT(A) had rightly reversed the Assessing Officer's action.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were unsustainable. It further found that the transfer of the capital asset, as per the stricter interpretation of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, had not taken place in the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the rectification proceedings was not covered by the show cause notice. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,66,394/- was not sustainable and was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing reasonable causes and the principle of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival of the cases if the scheme benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing reasonable causes and the principle of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, citing reasonable causes and the principle of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing reasonable opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was initiated beyond the statutory time limit and the reasons recorded did not explicitly state a failure by the assessee to disclose particulars fully and truly. The reopening notice was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. It upheld the disallowance of Section 80IB(10) deduction for certain housing blocks due to non-completion within the stipulated deadline.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to examine the interest income issue. Lack of inquiry renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing some appeals. It upheld the disallowance of Section 80IB(10) deduction for certain housing blocks due to non-completion within the stipulated deadline.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the additions were made under Section 153C proceedings which were previously quashed. The assessee's appeal regarding expense disallowance was partly allowed, reducing the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion. The material relied upon by the AO was already available during the original assessment proceedings, and there was no new material to suggest that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material particulars.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. It restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification as per law.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was due to technical difficulties and system failures related to the newly introduced e-TDS filing requirement, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was due to technical difficulties and system failures related to the newly introduced e-TDS filing requirement, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was due to technical difficulties and system failures related to the newly introduced e-TDS filing requirement, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of notional interest on loans given to individuals, stating that it cannot be calculated without an agreement. For commission expenses, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of services rendered by the sub-agents.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.