Loading ITAT cases…
86 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment was remanded back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeals, being a consequence of the quantum proceedings, should also be remanded. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the penalty afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's remand report was not conclusive and the CIT(A) had called for further reports. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and was forced to decide based on available material due to the assessee's absence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to produce the documentary evidence for the fixed assets. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibits continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor once moratorium is declared. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of details. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to present its case with supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for obtaining a special power of attorney, travel, hotel accommodation, postal charges, conveyance, lawyer fees, and photocopying are allowable expenditures under Section 48(i) of the Act. These expenses were considered necessary to effect the transfer of the property.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss or decide the merits of the appeal, having dismissed it due to lack of representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present documents.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the advance tax payments and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's submission that they can provide supporting documents, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the documents filed by the assessee and passed a cryptic, non-reasoned order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'specified sum' under Explanation (iv) to Section 269SS includes any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to the transfer of an immovable property. However, respectfully following a coordinate bench decision in ITO vs. Shri. R. Dhinagharan (HUF), ITA No. 3329/Chny/2019, the Tribunal held that the intention behind introducing the 'specified sum' was to curb the generation of black money in real estate by prohibiting the acceptance or repayment of advances in cash. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning that this provision is applicable only to advance receivables and not to the final payment made at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. Since it was an admitted fact that the cash of Rs. 9,38,000 was received by the assessee not as an advance but as the final payment in front of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration, there was no violation of Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee and set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in accepting the Rs. 10 lakhs withdrawal as a source for demonetization deposits. However, it found that the reason for withdrawal of Rs. 2.4 lakhs in August 2016 should also be considered if proven, and the opening balance of Rs. 2.33 lakhs needs verification.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and not at the entity level. It also restored issues regarding expatriate salary reimbursement and miscellaneous expenses to the AO/TPO for verification, and the provision for project losses to the DRP.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the first property sale, noting the AO accepted the assessee's declared capital gains after verification. For the cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify cheque encashment and the source of the remaining amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present documentary evidence. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake in selecting the wrong form and section code, allowing them to apply under the correct form. The CIT(E) was directed to hear and dispose of the assessee's request for regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to produce documentary evidence for sub-contractor expenses. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case. The assessee is directed to file submissions without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly addressed a hypothetical issue and deleted the additions without proper reasoning. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if not deposited before the statutory due dates under the respective Acts, cannot be allowed as a deduction. The CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's professional income and credit card payments are not disputed, the source of the cash used for these payments was not adequately explained. However, it acknowledged that some expenditure is necessary to earn income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is directed to file submissions without seeking adjournment.
The Tribunal held that delayed remittance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI, even if made before the due date for filing the return of income, cannot be allowed as a deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had deducted TDS but failed to deposit it within the due date. Since the deductees had offered the income and paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. The appeal of the revenue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption based on a technical error or typographical mistake in the return of income is not justified. The assessee's claim was otherwise eligible and consistently made in previous years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, especially since the Vivad se Vishwas settlement failed due to non-payment of taxes. Following the Supreme Court's decision in P.M. Paul, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld an addition of Rs. 30 lakhs and deleted an addition of Rs. 4 lakhs, considering the assessee's father was an agriculturist and the assessee had a share in the property, despite the lack of complete evidence for the loans.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that the cash deposits were from elderly parents and for sisters' marriages, and also from legitimate business activities. However, due to a lack of documentary evidence, the Tribunal upheld an addition of Rs. 7 lakhs and deleted the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to file a revised return even during scrutiny proceedings, as per Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order considering the revised return.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the merits of the assessee's appeal, having decided it based on available material due to the assessee's absence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 75 lakhs. The Tribunal found no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)'s findings, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 153C.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss or decide the merits of the appeal. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of working capital adjustment to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh consideration after reviewing the assessee's furnished information. The Tribunal allowed the ground relating to interest on ECB, finding that the assessee's payment of LIBOR+275 basis points was acceptable, especially as it was accepted in prior assessment years.