Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the transaction was for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, as evidenced by the conveyance deed and subsequent payments. The Tribunal also noted that the amended provisions for inadequate consideration under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were applicable from AY 2014-15 and not AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the bogus purchase addition, finding that the AO lacked independent inquiry and denied cross-examination. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 40A(3) disallowance for tea leaves, noting it was agricultural produce excluded from the rule. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's ground regarding travel expenditure.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB could not be levied solely on the basis of a statement made during a search without corroborating evidence. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) correctly rejected the approval as the society's objects did not exclusively align with educational purposes and the conditions for exemption were not met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. It also confirmed the direction to restrict disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to 0.5% of investments yielding exempt income. The deemed dividend addition was also affirmed based on a prior year's decision.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that a consortium arrangement with clear demarcation of work, independent execution, and risk bearing by members may not be treated as an AOP. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the applicability of exemption under Section 11 in light of the retrospective registration under Section 12AA, and to consider fresh evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for inventory write-offs, the issue should be set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication as the AO was not given an opportunity to verify the additional evidence. For commission payments and bad debts, the Tribunal found no additional evidence was filed and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a remission or cessation of liability. Merely not producing evidence of repayment does not automatically lead to an addition under this section. The CIT(A) had not followed the established legal proposition on the application of Section 41(1).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. The decision was based on a previous Tribunal ruling in the assessee's husband's case with identical facts and circumstances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions which were also confirmed by the High Court. The disallowance under Section 14A was to be recalculated based on income criteria, and the accrued interest was not to be taxed as per RBI guidelines.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as the notice of hearing was returned unserved. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected as part of advances is not income and thus disallowance under Section 43B does not arise. It also held that administrative expenses, being overheads not allocable to specific contracts, should be allowed. The penalty was reduced due to a dispute over gross receipts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat water supply, hire, and service charges as business income. For expenditure disallowances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings for the most part.
The Tribunal held that for inventory write-offs, the issue should be set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication as the AO was not given an opportunity to verify the additional evidence. For commission payments and bad debts, the Tribunal found no additional evidence was filed and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A)'s decision on prior period adjustments was considered favorable to the assessee, but the administrative grievance regarding consequential orders was outside the Tribunal's scope. The disallowance under Section 40A(9) and the treatment of anticipated claims were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of 'nil' ALP for royalty was not justified as it failed to consider all comparability factors beyond product characteristics. The club expenditure disallowance was deleted, and the leave encashment provision was remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' by the AO, as the AO had accepted the assessee's voluntary disallowance in the original assessment. This was considered an impermissible review of the AO's own order.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is to verify the evidence of the original appeal filing and decide the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was effective from April 1, 2011, and the assessment year in question is 2012-13, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that non-service of notice to the seller and the inability to produce the seller are not sufficient grounds to treat purchases as bogus, especially when payments are by cheque and the seller is a registered dealer. The Tribunal also found the rent payment to be genuine as confirmed by the trust and supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents and the sales were effected in foreign territories, the commission income did not accrue or arise in India. Therefore, no TDS was deductible under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat water supply, hire, and service charges as business income. For expenditure disallowances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings for the most part.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on freight and delivery charges from 30% to 10%, considering it an ad-hoc disallowance. For professional service charges, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea based on a High Court ruling regarding the retrospective effect of a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), leaving verification to the AO.
The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68. The tribunal found that the AO had wrongly invoked Section 68 as the issue pertained to expenditure claimed by the assessee, not cash credits. The CIT(A) had also considered the details provided by the assessee and the remand report.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without disposing of the case on merits. The assessee's contention of sufficient cause for non-appearance was accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the CIT(A) had verified the bills and found the amount to be a discount. The Tribunal also followed the rule of consistency with previous assessment years where similar issues were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal is set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on grounds of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not have the power to set aside the appeal. However, exercising its jurisdiction, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration of the reconciliation statement.
The Tribunal held that adding both the peak sum and commission income is not sustainable. It also directed that the surrendered income should be assessed across the relevant assessment years, not just one.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption arising from the documents found, which indicated a higher sale consideration than what was declared. The plea that the husband lacked authority to sign the earlier agreement was not sufficient to disprove the revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of 'nil' ALP for royalty was not justified as it failed to consider all comparability factors beyond product characteristics. The club expenditure disallowance was deleted, and the leave encashment provision was remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was self-contradictory and the addition was based on surmises, not sufficient evidence. The reopening was also found to be bad in law due to lack of independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents and the sales were effected in foreign territories, the commission income did not accrue or arise in India. Therefore, no TDS was deductible under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.