Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay of 43 days, considering the assessee's medical condition and physical disability. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to his file for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the specific grounds of appeal, including the validity of faceless assessment proceedings and the merits of the additions made. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp conversations, when read with the property transaction, payment chronology, and surrounding circumstances, reasonably supported the inference that '25 cash' referred to Rs. 25,00,000/-. The assessee's explanation of it being a contribution for an association was not substantiated.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee and that the issue of taxability of payments to a Nepal entity was not properly examined. Both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the lower authorities were ex parte and the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return was bona fide, as she believed her employer had filed it and was also employed abroad. Since the entire income, except for a small amount of interest, was subject to TDS, the penalty under section 270A was not leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the AO estimated the cost of acquisition for capital gains without proper basis and did not allow indexed cost. The penalty was also deemed unsustainable without a valid quantum addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was withdrawn under a bona fide belief and, considering the sequence of events and the High Court's liberty, the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should not have been disposed of before the quantum appeal, as the outcome of the quantum proceedings directly impacts the penalty. The CIT(A) ought to have awaited the disposal of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee and that the issue of taxability of payments to a Nepal entity was not properly examined. Both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted, the penalty cannot survive. It also found that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as the assessee had provided Form 26A certificates, indicating the sellers had accounted for the income.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted, the penalty cannot survive. It also found that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified as the assessee had provided Form 26A certificates, indicating the sellers had accounted for the income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has the power to reject the assessee's valuation if it's based on unreliable data but cannot substitute the valuation method chosen by the assessee. The assessee is given the option to choose between DCF or NAV methods as per rules.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the payment for software purchase was an outright sale and not royalty. It also noted that a portion of the payment for IP rights was subjected to TDS as per the DTAA, and therefore, no TDS default occurred.
The Tribunal held that gifts received from family members, supported by affidavits and considering customary practices, were bona fide and acceptable. However, the claim of past savings for the remaining amount lacked substantiating evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee firm was barred by limitation due to the inordinate delay of 825 days. No application for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order addressing the grounds of appeal. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was questionable due to the failure to issue a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return, the matter should be set aside for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's filed return and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the AO estimated the cost of acquisition for capital gains without proper basis and did not allow indexed cost. The penalty was also deemed unsustainable without a valid quantum addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that while separate benchmarking for interest on trade receivables is generally required, it may not arise if the assessee's margin, after considering working capital adjustments, is higher than that of the comparables. The matter was set aside for verification of these facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by holding that the reasons provided constituted 'sufficient cause'. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, considering the reasons as sufficient cause. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of being an agriculturist and not regularly using her email. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her claim.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 269SS, which included 'specified sum' and came into effect from June 1, 2015, could not be applied retrospectively to a transaction that occurred before the amendment. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly levied.
The Tribunal held that further addition towards interest on trade receivables from AEs was incorrect as the net profit margin of the assessee was substantially higher than comparables, factoring in working capital adjustments. The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for verification.
The Tribunal granted an early hearing of the appeals and directed the Assessing Officer not to take coercive action for recovery of the outstanding demand until the next date of hearing. The stay applications themselves were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires verification to see if the recipient offered the income to tax. The direction by the CIT(A) to initiate proceedings under Section 201(1) was set aside as it was beyond the scope of appeal.
The Tribunal held that further addition towards interest on trade receivables from AEs was incorrect as the net profit margin of the assessee was substantially higher than comparables, factoring in working capital adjustments. The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for verification.
The Tribunal held that further addition towards interest on trade receivables from AEs was incorrect as the net profit margin of the assessee was substantially higher than comparables, factoring in working capital adjustments. The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient savings from declared income over multiple years to explain a significant portion of the credit card expenditure. The addition was restricted to Rs. 2,71,000/-, and the tax was directed to be levied at the normal rate for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the services availed and the reasonableness of payments for management and technical fees, directing the deletion of the TP adjustment. For interest on trade receivables, the Tribunal directed the adoption of LIBOR plus 200 basis points.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires verification to see if the recipient offered the income to tax. The direction by the CIT(A) to initiate proceedings under Section 201(1) was set aside as it was beyond the scope of appeal.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the adjustment made for interest on outstanding trade receivables, finding that payments were received within 30 days. It also directed the deletion of the addition made for notional interest on loans given to a related party, considering it a revenue-neutral exercise.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as it fell within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the condition of filing a return of income for claiming exemption under section 10(23C) became mandatory only from AY 2023-24. Therefore, denial of exemption for non-filing of return for AY 2016-17 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition must be allowed while computing capital gains. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of capital gains after considering the cost of acquisition and other admissible deductions.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee showed agricultural land ownership, evidence of accumulated savings was lacking. For loan repayments, PAN details were provided but not examined, and affidavits were filed later. Both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the nature of capital gains and the date of acquisition, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The penalty appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings are finalized, as the foundation for the penalty was set aside.