Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority clarified that fees charged at cost or with a nominal markup for general public utility activities are not business income. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify profit margins.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority clarified that fees charged at cost or with a nominal markup for general public utility activities are not business income. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify profit margins.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority clarified that fees charged at cost or with a nominal markup for general public utility activities are not business income. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify profit margins.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of belated payment of employee's contribution towards Provident Fund is justified. The CIT(A) correctly confirmed the addition by following the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that crucial documents were supplied late, hindering proper representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted when no exempt income is earned during the year. The recent amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority clarified that fees charged at cost or with a nominal markup for general public utility activities are not business income. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify profit margins.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on unsecured loans and capital investment. It restricted the addition on foreign tour expenses and deleted the addition on jewellery, relying on its previous order for A.Y. 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that once scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(2) are initiated, the AO cannot pass orders under section 143(1). Such orders passed by the CPC after the initiation of scrutiny proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the discrepancies were due to factual errors in the IOCL ledger regarding purchase quantities, which were reconciled by the assessee with invoices and bank statements. The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine and backed by invoices, and the deposits were from legitimate sales proceeds.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on an incorrect understanding of the Settlement Commission's order. The Settlement Commission's final order did not clearly confirm that the seized cash and jewellery were offered to tax by the assessee's father.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(2) are initiated, the AO cannot pass orders under section 143(1). Such orders passed by the CPC after the initiation of scrutiny proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for the 'Vaman Drishti Shivir', which involved seminars, conferences, and lectures on improving education quality and moral values, was an essential part of the assessee's charitable object of imparting education. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while aggregation of closely linked transactions is permissible, the assessee's aggregation of transactions with multiple AEs across different jurisdictions was beyond the scope. The DRP's decision was also found to be lacking detailed reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the short-term loss declared by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were fully covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in a similar matter.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, in contravention of the CBDT circular, are invalid and liable to be quashed. Subsequent generation of DINs without following the prescribed procedure does not rectify the illegality.
The Tribunal held that the Project Completion Method is not prohibited by law and was consistently followed by the assessee and accepted in prior years. The PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the assessee's method was a bona fide and possible view.
The Tribunal found that the case required proper adjudication and that the principle of natural justice was not followed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without providing a fair opportunity and considering the facts. The assessee's objects included religious, social, educational, medical, and charitable work.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without providing a fair opportunity and considering the facts. The assessee's objects included religious, social, educational, medical, and charitable work.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of slow and non-moving inventory was not justified. The change in accounting basis was considered realistic and revenue-neutral, as a reduction in closing stock would impact the opening stock of the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that excess stock and advances related to the business and should be treated as business income, not deemed income under sections 69/69A/69B. However, excess cash was considered deemed income under section 69A, attracting the higher tax rate under section 115BBE.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- for M.B. Deshmukh due to failure to prove identity and genuineness, as the shareholder had apparently died before signing the application. However, the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- for Vijay Singh Rajput was deleted due to sufficient evidence like an affidavit and PAN. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's observation regarding the Mayank Welfare Society violating Section 10(23C) was irrelevant to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had already made the disallowances voluntarily before filing the return of income. The Revenue could not controvert the assessee's submissions or the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed under Section 154 was invalid because it lacked a DIN at the time of issuance, violating CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The subsequent generation of the DIN did not cure the illegality. The Tribunal also directed the AO to supply the original assessment order to the assessee.
The Tribunal found contradictory findings in the assessment order regarding the purchase bills and noted that the source and mode of investment were not established. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the search material, which indicated the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus gains, was not adequately provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of foreign travel expenses was not justified if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also ruled that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding cessation of liability can only be invoked if the liability is written off in the books or demonstrably ceased to exist, not merely due to the passage of time. The disallowance of depreciation was also addressed based on prior adjudications.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not valid. The Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions, making a plausible view. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction was not warranted.
The Tribunal found a confusion regarding the correct date of GST payment and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was remitted to the AO for proper verification of the payment date and to decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the assessee should be given a fair chance to represent their case. The tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the original intimation was not delivered, which would affect the limitation period for filing the first appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in considering the stamp duty valuation as the actual sale consideration. The assessee had provided evidence of receiving Rs. 20,00,000 through cheques, with their share being Rs. 5,00,000.
The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to participate in the hearings and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's statement recorded during the search, explaining the source of cash from his mother, had evidentiary value. The mother had also shown income in earlier years, supporting the explanation.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed on preliminary grounds without going into the merits.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid as it contravened CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003, which stipulated a threshold of Rs. 5 crore for such references. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to re-adjudicate the eligibility for deduction under Sections 54, 54B, or 54F. The issue of deduction claimed under Chapter IV of the Act was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments, and its suo motu disallowance exceeded the actual interest expenditure claimed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary burden by providing account confirmation, bank passbook, and PAN card of the creditor, proving identity and creditworthiness. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to conduct further inquiries despite having sufficient information.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was valid because the AO failed to properly examine the discrepancy between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The case was remanded for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, revision proceedings under Section 263 cannot be invoked against such a void order.