Loading ITAT cases…
137 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed on August 29, 2022, were barred by limitation. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal is considered the date of receipt by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also allowed weighted deduction for clinical trial expenses incurred outside approved facilities, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) found that the cash sales claimed by the assessee were not reliable due to suspicious sub-numbering of vouchers.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also allowed weighted deduction for clinical trial expenses incurred outside approved facilities, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were legal in nature. It was found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted gifts from the assessee's parents and grandparents as their income was not disputed. However, the source of gifts from other donors was not established, and that portion of the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from deposits with commercial banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, it directed that such income be considered under 'income from other sources' and allowed proportionate expenditure under Section 57.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had erred in excluding certain comparable companies based on functional differences, particularly regarding Accentia Technologies Limited. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of these exclusions.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee settling the disputes under consideration through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had erred in excluding certain comparable companies based on functional differences, particularly regarding Accentia Technologies Limited. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of these exclusions.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had erred in excluding certain comparable companies based on functional differences, particularly regarding Accentia Technologies Limited. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of these exclusions.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had erred in excluding certain comparable companies based on functional differences, particularly regarding Accentia Technologies Limited. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of these exclusions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the AO to pass a fresh order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with statutory notices and had not properly explained the delay in filing the appeal. However, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was done to provide an opportunity to the AO to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appeal proceedings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee settling the disputes under consideration through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessments for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were already quashed by a previous common order. Therefore, the current appeals were allowed on that basis.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated income on real estate business from 30% to 8% of turnover. For agricultural income, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider 40% of the claimed receipt as assessee's income, upholding the rest of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessments for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were already quashed by a previous common order. Therefore, the current appeals were allowed on that basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all particulars and the AO made disallowances after considering them. Relying on a Delhi High Court decision and a previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that while the profit estimation was necessary due to lack of records, the rate should be adjusted considering variations in profit margins and the introduction of privilege fees. The Tribunal directed a recomputation of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal found it reasonable to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was covered by subsequent Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search, concluded assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that the disclaimer clause in the audit report does not prevent verification of the assessee's books for cash payments. It also noted the assessee's submission regarding GST payments. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without considering the assessee's claim of income being below the taxable limit for advance tax. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was covered by subsequent Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not deciding the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds from M/s Gayatri Granites, which exceeded the advance given to M/s Ranvir Projects. Therefore, the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that if a company provides a loan on an interest basis in the course of its business, even if money lending is not its primary object but an ancillary one, it does not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The payment of interest on the housing loan was a crucial factor.
The Tribunal held that the 'specified sum' under Section 269SS, as amended, is intended to cover advances or other sums related to immovable property transactions, not the final sale consideration received at the time of registration. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the interest rate on the ECB loan was fixed, within permissible limits, and consistently accepted by the revenue in previous years, it should be accepted for the current assessment year as well, following the rule of consistency.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that expenses incurred after the cessation of business activities should be excluded from operating costs for calculating the Profit Level Indicator. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the interest on loans for the windmill project was not deductible under Section 80-IA as the loan was for erection and commissioning. Regarding the film rights, the Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed excess expenditure due to related party transactions, upholding the Assessing Officer's disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting method, which adjusted for depreciation on assets funded by contributions/subsidies in the total income computation, was correct. The adjustments nullified the impact on total income, making the AO's addition erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the pandemic period and the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee. The matter was directed to be decided on merits by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness but acknowledged that tax liability cannot be imposed without hearing the assessee. Since the assessee appeared to have left India, the Tribunal set aside the orders to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that expenses incurred after the cessation of business activities should be excluded from operating costs for calculating the Profit Level Indicator. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A(9)(a) can only be levied in cases of misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Since the Assessing Officer did not identify any such misrepresentation or suppression, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no malafide intention. It held that telescoping of income from earlier years is permissible when the assessee has declared substantial income, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed for the Assessment Year in which the income is assessable, irrespective of Form 26AS, especially when the assessee follows the percentage completion method. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was not fully substantiated with evidence, a reasonable amount could be attributed to accumulated cash in hand from past savings and his father's savings. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the explanation for Rs. 10.00 lakhs out of the Rs. 15.00 lakhs addition.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed for the Assessment Year in which the income is assessable, irrespective of Form 26AS, especially when the assessee follows the percentage completion method. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the seized material and made enquiries, forming a plausible view that the amounts were loans/advances, not unexplained credits. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred by not conducting his own inquiry to determine if the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had already conducted an inquiry and received explanations from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's business dealings with the unorganized sector and supported by evidence like invoices and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition as the source of income was accounted for.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that even in cases of ex-parte dismissal, the appellate authority should discuss the merits of the additions. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the assessee deserves another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have substantiated its claim of no taxable income or filed an application for exemption from advance tax payment before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering documents and affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, adhering to principles of natural justice.