Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify if deductions were claimed in earlier years was insufficient. The Tribunal modified the direction, ordering the AO to determine if any benefit was obtained by the assessee from the amount written off, in accordance with Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 solely because the AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the failure to initiate them does not automatically render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal found no material to controvert the assessee's plea of improper notice service. Technicalities were set aside in favor of substantial justice, and the impugned order was quashed.
The tribunal held that for AY 2019-20, the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- was to be decided afresh by the CIT(A) after allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search and no assessment was pending at the time of the search, the addition made under section 153A is not sustainable. The Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Ltd was followed.
The Tribunal held that the share transactions were a colourable device to obtain bogus capital gains. The assessee's claim of unawareness and genuine investment was not accepted, and the transactions were deemed part of a larger scheme of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the transactions in M/s. GCM Securities Limited shares were indeed sham and intended to convert unaccounted money into LTCG. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had noted a violation of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity for the assessee to present details. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer/TPO to grant a fresh opportunity for hearing and to pass an order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's medical condition and personal circumstances warranted a fresh opportunity. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The order was passed significantly beyond the permissible time limits.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are not independent of assessment proceedings and require prior satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the transactions in M/s. GCM Securities Limited shares were indeed sham and intended to convert unaccounted money into LTCG. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the transactions in M/s. GCM Securities Limited shares were indeed sham and intended to convert unaccounted money into LTCG. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the foundational facts were not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 solely because the AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the failure to initiate them does not automatically render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's technical incompetency and health issues. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a facilitator in the land dealings and not an aggregator. The cash component was paid by the purchaser company (M/s. Subhagruha Projects India Pvt. Ltd.) to the landlords, and the assessee was only entitled to a commission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepted the additional evidence, and set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2016-17, upholding the addition of unexplained cash. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal remanded the appeal to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify if deductions were claimed in earlier years was insufficient. The Tribunal modified the direction, ordering the AO to determine if any benefit was obtained by the assessee from the amount written off, in accordance with Section 41(1).
The Tribunal found that the foundational facts were not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify if deductions were claimed in earlier years was insufficient. The Tribunal modified the direction, ordering the AO to determine if any benefit was obtained by the assessee from the amount written off, in accordance with Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify if deductions were claimed in earlier years was insufficient. The Tribunal modified the direction, ordering the AO to determine if any benefit was obtained by the assessee from the amount written off, in accordance with Section 41(1).
The Tribunal found that the assessee's medical condition and personal circumstances warranted a fresh opportunity. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after seeking a remand report and providing an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide complete lease agreements and schedules despite directions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to examine the nature of the lease (financial vs. operational) and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, Section 234E for late filing fees could not be levied as the enabling clause in Section 200A was inserted only from that date. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and various High Court rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the corporate guarantee fee, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. Similarly, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to Section 14A, following a co-ordinate bench decision that the amendment was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that losses due to embezzlement by an agent are deductible if they arise out of and are incidental to the business, and recovery is not possible. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts in light of Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A) and that the interplay of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and domestic laws regarding TDS on royalty and SAP maintenance expenditure needed consideration. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 6/2022 condones the delay in filing Form 10IC for AY 2020-21 under certain conditions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider this circular.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A) and that the interplay of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and domestic laws regarding TDS on royalty and SAP maintenance expenditure needed consideration. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A) and that the interplay of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and domestic laws regarding TDS on royalty and SAP maintenance expenditure needed consideration. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 36(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows deduction for bad debts written off in the computation of income even without recording it in the accounts, is squarely applicable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are only permissible if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no assessment was pending at the time of search and no such material was found, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were part of a larger scheme of accommodation entries to generate bogus capital gains. The assessee's conduct, including the lack of similar investments in other years and the abnormal profits, indicated the transactions were not genuine.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is crucial for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) when using the TNMM method. It also noted that the DRP had previously granted working capital adjustments in similar cases for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additional income was not solely based on a voluntary statement but was a result of seized material and employee statements, leading to the admission of income. The penalty was upheld as the additional income arose from falsification of sub-contract expenses in the books.