Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and failed to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the reopening of assessment and the binding nature of SEBI findings. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal. The addition for delayed ESI/PF contribution was confirmed based on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services. The disallowance on contractor payments was also confirmed due to the assessee's failure to substantiate services rendered by subcontractors.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not disposed of on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the Assessing Officer could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not ascertain if the assessee earned any exempt income. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to prove no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80IA deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to provide evidence of development and compliance. For Section 14A, the issue was also remanded to the AO to verify if the assessee earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the Assessing Officer could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80IA deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to provide evidence of development and compliance. For Section 14A, the issue was also remanded to the AO to verify if the assessee earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment, failing which the Assessing Officer could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without prior satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the functional profile of the assessee and the comparables had not changed from previous assessment years where they were held to be non-comparable. Therefore, respecting the coordinate bench's findings, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of four specific entities from the comparable list.
The Tribunal held that the assessee presented objections before the Aayakar Seva Kendra within the limitation period. Any subsequent delay in transmission to the DRP due to clerical error should not be attributed to the assessee. The DRP's rejection of objections on limitation was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of possessing cash from agricultural income and remittances from his son abroad, coupled with the lack of banking facilities in his village, was credible. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transaction and the creditworthiness of the investors.
The Tribunal held that additions related to cash payments were unsustainable as the entries were recorded in the books of account and the AO had not rejected the books. Additions for non-deduction of TDS were deleted as tax was deposited before the due date. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) lacked the power to remand the matter to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to exercise his powers to conduct further inquiries. The primary onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of sub-contract expenses, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in previous decisions regarding the assessee's classification as ITeS or KPO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the TPO for a fresh adjudication on this issue after examining agreements and employee qualifications.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the opening cash balance and sales were not adequately considered for the cash deposits. The variation in GP rates also warranted further examination. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be made in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment order had attained finality. The assessee cannot use Section 153A proceedings to claim a deduction that was not claimed in the original return or revised return.
The tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that no dividend income was earned by the assessee, making the Section 14A disallowance invalid. For the issue related to Section 40(a)(ia) concerning interest paid to L&T Finance, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be made in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment order had attained finality. The assessee cannot use Section 153A proceedings to claim a deduction that was not claimed in the original return or revised return.
The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be made in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment order had attained finality. The assessee cannot use Section 153A proceedings to claim a deduction that was not claimed in the original return or revised return.
The Tribunal held that new documentary evidence, such as bank statements showing gold loans and subsequent deposits, was not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.