Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case and that the AO failed to follow the directions from the CIT's Section 263 order. The CIT(A) also passed an ex parte order without dealing with the merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue of DDT in the assessment order, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the High Court decision relied upon by the assessee was under challenge before the Supreme Court, and a contrary decision of the Supreme Court covered the issue in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee was the owner of the trucks and entitled to depreciation. It also agreed with the deletion of disallowances related to capital gains on land and rent payments, finding no infirmity in the lower appellate authority's factual conclusions.
The Tribunal restored the issues concerning M/s. Three Steel Men and M/s. Uranus Merchants Pvt. Ltd. to the AO for fresh verification of the assessee's explanations. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of the gift, finding that the assessee failed to establish the donor's creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was barred by limitation as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. It also found that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material, making it invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision to exclude certain comparables selected by the TPO, finding that their products were not broadly similar to the assessee's. The Tribunal agreed that functional comparability is crucial, but product comparability, even at a broad level, is also necessary.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the amended Section 68 was not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. Considering the lack of representation before the CIT and for natural justice, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the purchases and creditors. The disallowance of labour charges was also deemed unjustified as the payments were made to labourers engaged directly by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to explain the cash credits during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the income arising from the sale of space should be assessed as business income, not long-term capital gains. The AO's contention that it should be treated as capital gains was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unsustainable due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not provided with the statement of the individual or an opportunity for cross-examination. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer had treated similar suppliers as genuine in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that a litigant must not only file an appeal but also prosecute it diligently. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the payments for last mile charges, bandwidth for protection, and interconnectivity usage charges were for standard facilities and not royalty or technical services. The retrospective amendment of Section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012, was held not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the payments for last mile charges, bandwidth for protection, and interconnectivity usage charges were for standard facilities and not royalty. The retrospective amendment of Section 9(1)(vi) was not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unsustainable due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not provided with the statement of the individual or an opportunity for cross-examination. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer had treated similar suppliers as genuine in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the payments for last mile charges, bandwidth for protection, and interconnectivity usage charges were for standard facilities and not royalty or technical services. The retrospective amendment of Section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012, was held not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the payments for last mile charges, bandwidth for protection, and interconnectivity usage charges were for standard facilities and not royalty or technical services. The retrospective amendment of Section 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for ticket bookings, relying on CBDT circulars. For the other amount, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and acknowledged the assessee's contention of sufficient cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow for proper verification of the assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the opening peak balance. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions to peak credit and confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) as payments were covered by Rule 6DD(e)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the opening peak balance. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions to peak credit and confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) as payments were covered by Rule 6DD(e)(i).
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the revenue regarding admission of additional evidence were mis-conceived as no such evidence was admitted. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions on undisclosed investments as the revenue could not controvert the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee were to a wholesale licensee acting as an agent of the State Government, falling under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to adjudicate the additional claim made by the assessee, grant TDS/TCS credit, calculate dividend distribution tax excluding dividend from subsidiaries, and allow MAT credit. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on the uncorroborated statement of Shri Vikash Agarwal, without granting cross-examination, was not sustainable. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of payments through banking channels and delivery of materials.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for commission payments, including bank transfers and TDS, and directed deletion of the disallowance. For other expenses, an adhoc disallowance of 5% was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to low tax effect, following a CBDT circular. The assessee's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and Section 10A deduction were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) as direct expenses were already disallowed. For indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to re-compute considering only dividend-bearing investments and limiting it to total indirect expenses. For book profits, disallowance under Section 14A was to be made on a rational basis from the books of account, not by Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that capital contribution by a partner to a partnership firm does not constitute a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS. Therefore, no penalty is exigible under Section 271D for such transactions.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) as direct expenses were already disallowed. For indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to re-compute considering only dividend-bearing investments and limiting it to total indirect expenses. For book profits, disallowance under Section 14A was to be made on a rational basis from the books of account, not by Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in deferring the recognition of income over the five-year period of the agreement, as per AS-9 regarding royalties. The entire amount was not taxable in the initial year.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the ad-hoc disallowance by the CIT(A). It noted that the disallowance was made on conjecture and relied on judicial precedents that disallowed ad-hoc additions without basis and for non-natural persons like companies.
The Tribunal held that the assessments framed by the AO were time-barred as they were passed beyond the period stipulated under section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in annulling the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the assessments framed by the AO were time-barred as they were passed beyond the period stipulated under section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in annulling the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned. For book profits under Section 115JB, the disallowance computation under Rule 8D is not to be resorted to. The assessee's suo moto disallowance was accepted as the maximum permissible.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The assessee's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and Section 10A deduction were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax deferment, when converted into a loan under the State Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 43B as per CBDT Circulars. However, unpaid interest converted into a loan is not deductible under Section 43B due to specific legislative explanation.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The assessee's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and Section 10A deduction were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. Regarding interest on advances, it was held that if advances are for business expediency and the decision to abandon a project leading to the claim was taken in the relevant year, the expenditure is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the services received from the associated enterprise were not purely stewardship and that the DRP's direction to consider the benefit to the assessee was appropriate. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance as no interest-bearing funds were used for investments.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 8D was unjustified. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the discrepancy in fixed deposits was valid and the revised balance sheet was acceptable. It also ruled that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption for the mutual fund investment, as the assessee had inadvertently offered the entire redemption value instead of just the profit.
The Tribunal held that the services received from the associated enterprise were not purely stewardship and that the DRP's direction to consider the benefit to the assessee was appropriate. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance as no interest-bearing funds were used for investments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued the statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, as evidenced by assessment notings. Therefore, the re-assessment order was not non-est and the CIT's revision was valid.