Loading ITAT cases…
90 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that due to the directors' custody, the assessee could not diligently prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the directors' custody, the assessee could not diligently prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the directors' custody, the assessee could not diligently prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was conditional upon the assessee paying costs and was considered the last opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was conditional upon the assessee paying costs and was considered the last opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was conditional upon the assessee paying costs and was considered the last opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that due to the directors' custody, the assessee could not diligently prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the directors' custody, the assessee could not diligently prosecute the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, accepting her explanation for certain postal withdrawals but upholding the addition related to the sale of jewelry due to lack of evidence and violation of Section 40A. For the subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal also partially allowed the appeal, accepting some loan explanations but confirming additions related to jewelry sales and other unexplained deposits.
The Tribunal held that the admission of additional income during the search, coupled with employee statements, established that the earlier returns were incorrect and contained inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) squarely applicable.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable in search cases where income is declared after the search. The admission of additional income by the Managing Director and employees during the search, without retraction, supported the penalty.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation and the confirmation letter from the father, considering the amount to be reasonable for family expenses and the father's capacity to reimburse. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was conditional upon the assessee paying costs and was considered the last opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is not fatal to the claim of foreign tax credit, as the provision is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments where similar belatedly filed forms were accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the gift deed was a colourable device, executed artificially to claim exemption under Section 54F. The assessee's conduct, including continuing to reside in the gifted property and the timing of the gift relative to the sale and purchase, indicated an intention to avoid taxes rather than a genuine act of gifting.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that notices were wrongly issued to the deceased father and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the individual members of the AOP, as they were the owners of the capital asset. The addition made in the hands of the AOP was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that sales were accepted and payments were made through banking channels. It reduced the addition for bogus purchases from 25% to 15% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the denial of exemption under section 11, which was upheld by the CIT(A), had been nullified by subsequent orders from the PCCIT and the AO. Therefore, the appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's explanation regarding the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act has no evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidence. Since the Revenue had no other material except the retracted statement, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that sales were accepted and payments were made through banking channels. It reduced the addition for bogus purchases from 25% to 15% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that sales were accepted and payments were made through banking channels. It reduced the addition for bogus purchases from 25% to 15% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee is a housewife and the circumstances, granted one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) and prove her case. This is subject to a Rs. 2,000/- deposit to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 'Covers' expenses as the assessee failed to prove they were not theirs or incurred for business purposes. For maintenance expenses, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)-NFAC, directing it to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case and pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal has corrected specific monetary figures in its earlier order due to typographical errors. The rest of the original order's content remains unchanged.
The Tribunal remanded the issues regarding the exclusion of Infosys BPO and the inclusion of Capgemeni Business Services India Ltd. and Jindal Intellicom Ltd. back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh examination. It also reiterated the directions of the DRP regarding notional interest on delayed receivables.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI, if not remitted before the due date prescribed in the respective enactments, cannot be allowed as a deduction, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the seized documents did not pertain to the assessment year was factually incorrect. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for the use of shrink-wrap computer software under a non-exclusive, non-transferable license, which does not involve the transfer of copyright. Therefore, the payments do not constitute royalty.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd held that delayed remittances of employee's PF & ESI are not deductible. However, due to a claimed mistake in data entry by the assessee and a dispute over the actual amount of delay, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the bank account and deposits belonged to the partnership firm, as evidenced by the firm's balance sheet and return of income. However, since these details were not provided to the lower authorities, the issue was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that an oral agreement does not constitute a valid transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, especially when a registered sale deed exists for a later date. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the transfer in the earlier year.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order regarding the inclusion of M/s. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. to be cryptic and remanded it for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also directed the TPO/AO to decide the issue of interest on receivables afresh, considering previous directions regarding credit period and interest rates.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking any adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the Section 80IA deduction was erroneous. It noted that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the Section 80IA deduction was erroneous. It noted that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the Section 80IA deduction was erroneous. It noted that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A.