Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, citing the principle of natural justice and the possibility of substantial cause for non-submission earlier. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous judgments and the principle that market-to-market losses on hedging foreign exchange contracts related to trading transactions are ascertained and allowable. Similarly, the additional depreciation claim was allowed based on the retrospective nature of a curative amendment.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved reconciliation of TDS deduction figures. It was observed that the factual position regarding the impugned demand was identical across appeals and that the 'TRACES' details seemed prima facie correct.
The Tribunal held that the payee's income was not chargeable to tax in India as the services were rendered outside India and the payee had no permanent establishment in India. Therefore, Section 195 was not attracted, and the disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the payee's income was not chargeable to tax in India as the services were rendered outside India and the payee had no permanent establishment in India. Therefore, Section 195 was not attracted, and the disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest on loans, holding that interest-free funds were sufficient to cover work-in-progress. For the ambulance service expenditure, the ad hoc disallowance was reduced from 10% to 5%.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable even if dividend income is taxed under Section 115-O, citing a Supreme Court decision. It also confirmed the disallowance of security transaction tax but deleted proportionate interest expenditure disallowance due to net surplus interest income. The administrative expenditure disallowance was modified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted adjournment letters but passed ex parte orders without considering the merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, citing the principle of natural justice and the possibility of substantial cause for non-submission earlier. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved reconciliation of TDS deduction figures. It was observed that the factual position regarding the impugned demand was identical across appeals and that the 'TRACES' details seemed prima facie correct.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to entertain fresh claims raised for the first time, even if not made before the AO. The sales tax remission was considered a capital receipt and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the discounts given to distributors did not constitute commission liable for TDS under Section 194H, as the distributors were not agents. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view on TDS for prepaid SIM cards/recharge vouchers for the assessment year 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the discounts given to distributors did not constitute commission liable for TDS under Section 194H, as the distributors were not agents. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view on TDS for prepaid SIM cards/recharge vouchers for the assessment year 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the discounts given to distributors did not constitute commission liable for TDS under Section 194H, as the distributors were not agents. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view on TDS for prepaid SIM cards/recharge vouchers for the assessment year 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved reconciliation of TDS deduction figures. It was observed that the factual position regarding the impugned demand was identical across appeals and that the 'TRACES' details seemed prima facie correct.
The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had successfully discharged her onus by providing overwhelming evidence that the sum was a legitimate distribution of profit from a firm.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted adjournment letters but passed ex parte orders without considering the merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the discounts given to distributors did not constitute commission liable for TDS under Section 194H, as the distributors were not agents. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view on TDS for prepaid SIM cards/recharge vouchers for the assessment year 2013-14.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, citing the principle of natural justice and the possibility of substantial cause for non-submission earlier. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved reconciliation of TDS deduction figures. It was observed that the factual position regarding the impugned demand was identical across appeals and that the 'TRACES' details seemed prima facie correct.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the extent of actual exempt dividend income. The Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts or law.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliant attitude and considered the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution based on established legal principles.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries as directed by the CIT under Section 263 and did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in relying on the rejected books for estimation. It further found that the CIT(A)'s estimation was not based on independent material. The Tribunal adjusted the net profit rate to account for unvouched expenses.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal. It sustained the addition for a loan from an outsider (S K Goel) but deleted additions for loans from family members and a family concern, as well as the disallowance of interest. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of an addition for a brought-forward liability.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's jurisdiction at the 12AA stage is limited to verifying the genuineness of the objects and activities, not the application of funds. The ex parte rejection was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that advances to subsidiaries were for commercial expediency and business purposes, entitling the assessee to interest deduction. The disallowance of legal fees was also deemed unjustified due to lack of specific findings.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, considered the assessee's non-compliant attitude. The appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable as the assessee had submitted a tax audit report before the Assessing Officer. The non-inclusion of share trading transactions in the report, due to reasons beyond control, did not warrant the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the purchases should not be doubted given the nature of the business, the use of valid waybills, and the acceptance of sales figures by the AO. Regarding clearing and forwarding charges, the Tribunal ruled that reimbursements of expenses incurred by agents on behalf of the assessee do not attract TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that the date of issue of a notice is the date it leaves the control of the issuing authority, which is when it is handed over to the postal authorities. Since the notice was handed over on April 5, 2015, it was beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion and not on any new tangible material. The original assessment under Section 143(3) is presumed to have considered all relevant issues.
The Tribunal held that the entire seized cash should have been adjusted against the advance tax liability from the date of the assessee's application, as the nature of both amounts was the same and the department held the money. Consequently, no interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C should be charged.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had provided evidence of the source of investment, including sale deeds of other properties and bank statements, which were ignored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's jurisdiction at the 12AA stage is limited to verifying the genuineness of the objects and activities, not the application of funds. The ex parte rejection was not sustainable.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal. It sustained the addition for a loan from an outsider (S.K. Goel) as the assessee failed to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. However, it upheld the deletion of additions for loans from family members and a family concern, and also deleted the addition for interest.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made on account of provision for doubtful debts, considering it as a write-off of bad debts.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on overdue trade liabilities is compensatory and not 'interest' for TDS purposes under Section 194A, thus deleting the disallowance. It also held that advances from customers, even if adjusted against bills to different addresses, are not unexplained cash credits if duly adjusted against sales, deleting the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance before the CIT(Appeals) was due to notices being sent to a wrong address, constituting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that non-compliance was due to notices being sent to the wrong address, constituting a sufficient cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard and to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the assessee's submission that notices from the CIT(Appeals) were not served, providing a sufficient cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices from the CIT(Appeals) due to an insufficient address, which was a sufficient cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh on merit after giving the assessee one more opportunity to be heard and to comply.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not received notices from the CIT(Appeals) and therefore had a sufficient cause for non-appearance. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.