Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed agricultural income and the source of foreign remittances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment orders. It was found that the assessment under Section 153A was validly made, and the CIT(A) should not have entertained the jurisdictional issue under Section 154 after the assessment had attained finality.
The Tribunal held that the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 54F before the appellate authority, even if not claimed in the original return. However, the issue of claiming deduction u/s. 54F was restored to the AO for verification of conditions. The Tribunal also restored the issue of cost of construction per sq.ft. to the AO for determination based on SRO rates.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not invoke Section 40A(3) without examining the books of accounts and establishing that cash payments were indeed made and debited to the profit and loss account. The MD's statement did not explicitly confirm such cash payments.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not invoke Section 40A(3) without examining the books of accounts and establishing that cash payments were indeed made and debited to the profit and loss account. The MD's statement did not explicitly confirm such cash payments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 54F before the appellate authority, even if not claimed in the original return. However, the issue of claiming deduction u/s. 54F was restored to the AO for verification of conditions. The Tribunal also restored the issue of cost of construction per sq.ft. to the AO for determination based on SRO rates.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 4,42,75,200/- related to film collections, after allowing certain expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to rectify an omission regarding Rs. 31,00,000/- in unaccounted income.
The Tribunal remanded the issue under Section 40(a)(ia) to the AO for verification of tax payment by payees. For Section 43B, the matter was remanded for verification of timely deposit of VAT, ESI, and PF. The disallowance under Section 14A was allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of employee's PF contribution to the Assessing Officer for verification of timely deposit. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal also remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to ascertain if any exempt income was earned by the assessee.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2017-18 as not pressed and withdrawn. For AY 2016-17, the issue of double taxation was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification, and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not comply with the notice dated March 1, 2023, requiring information by March 6, 2023, the order rejecting registration was passed on March 16, 2023. The assessee claimed to have learned of the notice on March 16, 2023, and submitted details via email on March 17, 2023. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not issue any further notice after the one dated March 1, 2023. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to give one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details and decide the issue on facts and law. The assessee was also directed to comply with the CIT(E)'s directions without seeking any adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, following its own order for the preceding assessment year, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to provide necessary documentation and arguments regarding the expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment orders. It was found that the assessment under Section 153A was validly made, and the CIT(A) should not have entertained the jurisdictional issue under Section 154 after the assessment had attained finality.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2017-18 as not pressed and withdrawn. For AY 2016-17, the issue of double taxation was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification, and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and contest the appeal. The assessee was directed to file all supporting documents, after which the CIT(A) would call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was invalid because the AO failed to record the assessee's failure to disclose material facts and the CIT's satisfaction was recorded mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was invalid because the AO failed to record the assessee's failure to disclose material facts and the CIT's satisfaction was recorded mechanically without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer can scrutinize the valuation report but must record reasons for not accepting it and cannot change the valuation method. The actual future results cannot be the basis for rejecting projections made on the valuation date.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's analysis of management fees was not properly appreciated and the 'Benefits Test' and 'Renditions Test' were applied incorrectly. Regarding social security costs, the Tribunal noted that the DRP's order was cryptic and lacked reasoning. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for a fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the foreign tax credit after due verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rectifying the assessment under section 154 to reflect the income determined in the 143(3) assessment, as it was a substitution of the last assessed income. The Tribunal also clarified that there cannot be two demands for the same assessed income under different assessment orders.
The Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the property purchase and loan, considering the complexities arising from the insolvency of the financier. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant factor for comparability in transfer pricing analysis and that companies with significantly different turnovers should not be equated. For interest on receivables, the Tribunal directed the adoption of LIBOR + 200 basis points as the appropriate interest rate.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue of global/regional management overhead allocation fee to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. For interest on trade receivables, the Tribunal directed the adoption of LIBOR+200 basis points as the interest rate.
The Tribunal held that invoking Section 115BBE through a rectification order under Section 154 is not permissible when the original assessment order under Section 143(3) did not record any satisfaction regarding unexplained income under Sections 68 to 69D. Such an action is considered bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14. It also reiterated that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's declaration of Rs. 8 lakhs under the PMGKY scheme, though not fully substantiated with evidence linking it to the assessment discrepancies, should be considered. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow 10% of lorry freight charges.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs by an industrial undertaking is profits and gains derived from its business and is allowable under Section 80-IA. For other grounds, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate their case without seeking adjournments.