Loading ITAT cases…
102 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that given the initial years of the faceless assessment scheme, the assessee should be given leverage to adapt to the new procedure. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the most appropriate method for benchmarking ITeS to the AO/TPO, directing them to consider internal TNMM and operating profit/cost of AE transactions. The issue of interest on receivables was partly allowed by directing the AO to consider a 6% interest rate. The disallowance related to payments to a Thailand entity was deleted, while the disallowance for payments to a German entity was upheld.
The Tribunal held that given the initial years of the faceless assessment scheme, the assessee should be given leverage to adapt to the new procedure. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case with requisite details. The assessee was also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- with the State Legal Aid Department.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a lawyer with agricultural land, would have some savings. It considered the need for medical emergencies and sustenance, reducing the addition to Rs. 4,50,000/- and confirming Rs. 3,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took one of the possible views after considering the facts and documents. Therefore, the order of the PCIT revising the assessment under Section 263 was not justified as it was not prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to substantiate their claim for exemption under Section 54F as the construction was significantly delayed beyond the stipulated period, and no evidence of proactive steps to enforce their rights was provided. The dispute among developers arose after the statutory period for completion.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to substantiate their claim for exemption under Section 54F as the construction was significantly delayed beyond the stipulated period, and no evidence of proactive steps to enforce their rights was provided. The dispute among developers arose after the statutory period for completion.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the ITBA portal proceedings and the opportunity to submit relevant documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted additional evidence explaining the cash deposits as collections from the public for utility bill payments through an e-seva centre. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the return has been condoned, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P deserves to be considered on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to reconsider the capital gains computation in light of previous ITAT and High Court decisions concerning property title disputes and annulled transfers.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 95,41,800/- based on the presumption of correctness of documents found during search, rejecting the assessee's retraction. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the Rs. 1 crore transaction, finding it to be a cash loan based on seized material and statements.
The Tribunal noted contradictory claims regarding the submission of evidence by the assessee. To ascertain the correct facts, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition and the COVID period. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 95,41,800/- based on the presumption of correctness of documents found during search, rejecting the assessee's retraction. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the Rs. 1 crore transaction, finding it to be a cash loan based on seized material and statements.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claims regarding reimbursement of expenses, inter-bank transfers, salary payments, and his brother's business transactions required in-depth examination. The evidence filed by the assessee could not be verified at the Tribunal level.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that interest income on securities should be taxed on a 'due basis' as per the terms of the instrument, not on an accrual basis. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that provisions for doubtful debts, when they are written off by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet, amount to a write-off and are not hit by Section 115JB(1)(i). Provisions for gratuity, computed on an actuarial basis, are considered ascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that treating the return as nonest was incorrect as the AO had issued a final opportunity notice. The AO is directed to verify the expenditure claimed by the assessee and accept the return if the net profit offered is more than 25%.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was factually incorrect about the material considered by the AO. The Tribunal noted that withdrawals were made for agricultural land purchase, and due to demonetization, the assessee deposited the cash.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in the computation of capital gain was not an 'apparent mistake' as contemplated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were correct in not rectifying the order under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the alleged escapement of income. The Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the assessee's ITR and relied solely on an investigation report without independent verification.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the subsequent developments and the request made by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted explanations and supporting documents like bank statements and LIC receipts. These documents were not considered by the revenue authorities, leading to an incorrect ex parte assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by excluding certain expenses from comparable companies without affording the AO/TPO an opportunity. Consequently, the issue of TP adjustment regarding specified domestic transactions was remanded back to the AO/TPO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables constitute an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest on receivables by applying LIBOR+200 basis points, considering a credit period of thirty days or as per agreement/invoice.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) only. It also directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the applicability of the Resale Price Method (RPM) for trading segments and to reclassify the assessee if the majority of AE transactions relate to trading.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by excluding certain expenses from comparable companies without affording the AO/TPO an opportunity. Consequently, the issue of TP adjustment regarding specified domestic transactions was remanded back to the AO/TPO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by excluding certain expenses from comparable companies without affording the AO/TPO an opportunity. Consequently, the issue of TP adjustment regarding specified domestic transactions was remanded back to the AO/TPO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by excluding certain expenses from comparable companies without affording the AO/TPO an opportunity. Consequently, the issue of TP adjustment regarding specified domestic transactions was remanded back to the AO/TPO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271F is not leviable if a non-resident has no taxable income in India and the additions are under appeal. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is also premature until the outcome of the main appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271F is not leviable if a non-resident has no taxable income in India and the additions are under appeal. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is also premature until the outcome of the main appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to produce documentary evidence for the cash deposits. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits.
The Tribunal held that the lands in Narsinghi Village are capital assets as per Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Since no evidence was produced to prove otherwise, the AO's computation of capital gains was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, including an affidavit from the donor and evidence of the donor's agricultural income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271F is not leviable if a non-resident has no taxable income in India and the additions are under appeal. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is also premature until the outcome of the main appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the 'human probability' test is not universally applicable and depends on case facts. Given the evidence of compensation receipt and cash withdrawals, the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was considered bonafide.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's sales figures, particularly the increase in October and consistent sales above Rs. 30 lakhs post-November, explained the cash deposit. The timing of the deposit immediately after demonetization also supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental right and a violation of natural justice. Since the assessee was not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant parties, the addition made by the lower authorities was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing, but the assessee failed to appear or submit any documents. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, with a caution to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's ground regarding the jurisdiction of the rectification order passed without an original intimation under Section 143(1). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54 deduction to the AO for verification on merits, as it was raised for the first time. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the remaining eligible deduction under Section 54EC.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the entire land for which capital gains were offered and that the registered sale deeds clearly indicated separate ownership. Therefore, no addition could be made in the assessee's hands for the land not held by him.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to produce documentary evidence and present their case on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that income from fishing activity is a commercial activity and not agricultural income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to compute the correct business income after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit necessary documents.