Loading ITAT cases…
95 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that surcharge is not leviable on income less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the definition of maximum marginal rate and relevant Finance Act provisions. It followed a coordinate bench decision that surcharge is linked to the highest slab of income.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is not leviable on income less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the definition of maximum marginal rate and relevant Finance Act provisions. It followed a coordinate bench decision that surcharge is linked to the highest slab of income.
The Tribunal held that the DRP had not provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the sources of funds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the source of the cash deposit. The evidence presented, such as bank statements, was not considered adequate to support the large cash amount.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of justice, finding the assessee's explanation acceptable. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside for not complying with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by dismissing the appeal in limine without dealing with the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention, finding the bank statement clear regarding the gold loan. Since the source of the deposits was acceptable, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons for delay to be beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was disposed of ex-parte without dealing with the merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues of PF/ESI and TDS disallowances to the AO for verification, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted, finding a reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.
The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables from AEs are international transactions and need to be benchmarked. However, it found the AO/DRP's method of adopting SBI PLR incorrect and remanded the issue for reconsideration based on the currency denomination of the receivables. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee PF contribution remitted belatedly.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were not bonafide and did not constitute a reasonable cause. The assessee's claim of not being aware of the appellate order and filing procedure was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that if the last date for depositing statutory contributions falls on a public holiday, the assessee should be permitted to deposit on the next working day. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal restored the issues of PF/ESI and TDS disallowances to the AO for verification, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted, finding a reasonable cause for the assessee's failure.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed in the year the income is assessable, even if the credit appears in Form 26AS for a different year. The facts needed verification.
The Tribunal held that the electronic data, without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, must be supported by corroborative evidence. The sale deed relied upon by the revenue was not considered corroborative as it did not confirm the payment or accrual of interest.
The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables arising in the course of business are international transactions requiring benchmarking. However, it directed that the notional interest on receivables beyond 60 days should be computed at 6% instead of the SBI rate applied by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce necessary details before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the assessee's readiness to produce documentary evidence and the fact that the assessee stands to gain by substantiating their claims, a fresh opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been provided with sufficient opportunity to present documents and was willing to do so now. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The court held that delayed deposit of employee contributions to ESI/PF, even if made before the return filing date, would not be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of admitted taxes, as the assessee claimed no taxable income. The assessment order was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a minor delay should not lead to denial of FTC. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance of the claim.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present their case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for one last opportunity to the assessee to provide documentary evidence. A cost of Rs. 3000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below did not properly understand the issue and dismissed the appeal without giving a proper opportunity. In the interest of natural justice, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for one last opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence regarding taxes paid in Singapore.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be taxed on net income, not gross receipts, as per the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO to consider the deduction of expenditure incurred in earning the income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10-IB made Section 115BA inapplicable, upholding the denial of the lower tax rate. However, it remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to determine the correct tax rate applicable based on the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay. It directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 10.50 lakhs, accepting the rental agreement and the timing of the deposit. The addition of Rs. 37,854/- was also allowed upon production of LIC premium receipts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that she owned agricultural land and her parents cultivated it. The deposit of the entire cash on a single day shortly after demonetization was not considered suspicious given her means.
The Tribunal held that the earlier withdrawals from bank accounts could constitute a source for the demonetization deposits. Following High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found it fit to believe the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the pandemic and its aftermath as reasonable causes. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was dismissed in limine without dealing with the merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not dispose of the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was dismissed in limine without considering merits or providing reasons. Technicalities should yield to substantial justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), finding no diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), finding no diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute interest on receivables using LIBOR + 200 basis points and to re-examine the disallowance of trademark license fees in light of the agreement. The TDS credit issue was also remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition as the seized material did not directly relate to the assessee and there was a confirmation from MAA Highways regarding the transactions. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient sources to explain the purchase of jewellery and the cash found did not belong to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition as the seized material did not directly relate to the assessee and there was a confirmation from MAA Highways regarding the transactions. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient sources to explain the purchase of jewellery and the cash found did not belong to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition as the seized material did not directly relate to the assessee and there was a confirmation from MAA Highways regarding the transactions. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient sources to explain the purchase of jewellery and the cash found did not belong to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to furnish requisite details and evidence. The assessee was directed to appear on the appointed date without seeking adjournments.
The tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the source of cash deposits was bonafide and acceptable, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide contrary evidence. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.