Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and that the disallowances made by the CPC might lead to double disallowance as the assessee had already suo motu disallowed them. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the other assessment year, considering the assessee was pursuing a rectification request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C and taxing it under Section 115BBE. The income was considered part of the assessee's regular business activities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with the law on all counts. The reasons cited for reopening, including alleged misapportionment of expenses and calculation errors, were found to be invalid or rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that delayed receivables constitute an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) by adding notional interest at 6% on receivables outstanding beyond 60 days.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and that the disallowances made by the CPC might lead to double disallowance as the assessee had already suo motu disallowed them. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the other assessment year, considering the assessee was pursuing a rectification request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and FTC cannot be denied solely due to a short delay. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the FTC after due verification.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the boundary wall, being complete and serving its purpose of protecting business assets, is eligible for depreciation. However, it upheld the disallowance of the cost of acquisition for the portion of land not sold, as capital gains are computed on the asset actually transferred.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the cash deposits as part of business receipts for estimating income at 8%, and to also consider the income offered by the assessee and deductions claimed. The addition of Rs. 10.09 lakhs made separately was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the TPO/DRP should examine the data available regarding unrelated parties to apply the CUP method. The matter was remanded back to the TPO/AO for a fresh examination of the data and to determine arm's length pricing. Grounds related to interest on receivables were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had correctly understood and implemented the directions of a previous Tribunal order for AY 2007-08. Consequently, the issue was not properly decided in the prior proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA deduction, finding no infirmity. However, it allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI not paid by the statutory due dates.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA deduction, finding no infirmity. However, it allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI not paid by the statutory due dates.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction without affording the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence and submissions. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities are bound to follow its previous directions. Since the lower authorities failed to give effect to the Tribunal's earlier orders, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding a Rs. 1.62 crore amount. This amount was claimed to be TDS of a firm, not income of the assessee, and involved a misidentification of a group. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding a Rs. 1.62 crore amount. This amount was claimed to be TDS of a firm, not income of the assessee, and involved a misidentification of a group. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding a Rs. 1.62 crore amount. This amount was claimed to be TDS of a firm, not income of the assessee, and involved a misidentification of a group. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding a Rs. 1.62 crore amount. This amount was claimed to be TDS of a firm, not income of the assessee, and involved a misidentification of a group. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding a Rs. 1.62 crore amount. This amount was claimed to be TDS of a firm, not income of the assessee, and involved a misidentification of a group. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to adjudicate the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of whether the recipient had paid taxes on the amounts received, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the disclosure of capital gains at the appellate stage was not voluntary as it occurred after receiving an enhancement notice. Therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was justified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the income, it had to be treated as 'income from other sources'. The application of Section 115BBE was upheld, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities are bound to follow its previous directions. Since the lower authorities failed to give effect to the Tribunal's earlier orders, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence. The assessee was directed to appear and file requisite details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory, and the DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules. Therefore, delayed filing of Form 67 should not lead to denial of Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but a consequence of incriminating evidence found during the search. Therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was justified.
The Tribunal held that an addition made purely on an estimation basis, without reference to the assessee's books of accounts, cannot form the foundation for levying penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal granted a final opportunity to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer and present their case diligently, considering the pandemic's intervention. It was clarified that no further adjournments would be granted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ultimate cooperation in completing the assessment but also noted the non-compliance. To strike a balance, the penalty was sustained for one occasion and deleted for the others.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking into account the Supreme Court's exclusion of time limitations due to COVID-19 and the assessee's medical reasons. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by estimating a reasonable amount of agricultural income, following its own precedents. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal remanded the issue of undisclosed investments back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal by estimating a reasonable amount of agricultural income, following its own precedents. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal remanded the issue of undisclosed investments back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the Covid-19 pandemic and other reasonable causes. The Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the ICAI proceedings and police investigation indicated fraud against the assessee. Therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to hold the assessee liable for taxes resulting from the fraud.
The Tribunal held that late filing fees under Section 234E cannot be levied in an intimation issued under Section 200A for TDS statements filed for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was inserted later. Therefore, the levy of such fees was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the goodwill acquired through a slump sale is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation, distinguishing it from cases involving related parties or fictional goodwill.