Loading ITAT cases…
299 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision and the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee when there are conflicting judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had already received reasonable relief. The adverse findings regarding the supplier's fake bills, untraceability, and discrepancies in VAT returns and invoice details were considered significant.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee an opportunity to establish the nexus between the interest income and its business. This was to determine if the interest income should be part of the business turnover for estimation.
The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of shares, conducted through a registered broker on the BSE, with payments received in the bank account and STT paid, cannot be considered inherently bad. The AO's disallowance was based on external information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable and directed recomputation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also held that PMS fees are eligible for deduction while computing short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the addition towards closing stock in the hands of the assessee firm for AY 2008-09 is sustained. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to increase the opening stock by the same amount in the hands of the successor private limited company.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross objection due to inordinate delay and lack of proper explanation. On merits, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding share capital.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed his order before receiving the assessee's comments on the remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income. The matter regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remitted to the AO for considering the second proviso. The claim for bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) was upheld as disallowed, but the alternative claim as business loss under Section 28(1) was remitted for examination. The carry forward of long-term loss was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear or provide reasons for absence, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised an additional ground regarding telescoping benefit of undisclosed gross profits added by the AO in earlier assessment years against the peak credit addition. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the telescoping benefit.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of courier/transport charges back to the AO for further verification of whether the payees offered the income for tax. For commission and brokerage, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition, as payments were made by account payee cheques, TDS was deducted, and the recipients were assessed to tax, with no evidence of the payments being bogus.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it was against the policy decision of the Department due to the low tax effect. CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all requisite details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Assessing Officer's addition was based on conjectures and surmises without cogent material, hence not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries as directed by the CIT and instead shifted the onus onto the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that it was not possible to adjudicate the case without the assessment records. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) is mandatory for delayed remittance of TDS and is independent of Section 201(1). However, it directed the AO to recompute the interest up to the date of actual tax payment by the deductees, not the filing of their return.
The Tribunal held that the written-off advances and security deposits were either offered as income or reduced expenses in earlier years, or were made for business purposes and became irrecoverable. Therefore, they were allowable as a trading loss.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the tax rate, citing a previous decision. However, it allowed the assessee's claim for refund of TDS on interest payments to its head office/branches and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately discussed the issue of surcharge applicability in light of the assessee's losses. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct independent enquiries and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were routine in nature and should be considered as income. They were not corpus donations and should have been routed through the income and expenditure account as per Section 11 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the written-off advances and security deposits were either offered as income or reduced expenses in earlier years, or were made for business purposes and became irrecoverable. Therefore, they were allowable as a trading loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10B. It relied on a previous decision of the Tribunal which held that approval granted by the Director STPI, along with a green card, was sufficient for EOU status, and that the Income Tax Department cannot take advantage of an assessee's mistakes in claiming deductions.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty for non-compliance with the Section 143(2) notice. However, it cancelled the penalty for non-compliance with the Section 142(1) notice, finding that the omission of 'Jatindra Mohan Avenue' from the address rendered the notice invalid and undisputed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of irrecoverable advances, given in the normal course of business and for commercial expediency, constituted a business loss and was allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance of lease rent, following its own previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation should be spread over the period it accrued, not taxed entirely in the year of receipt. Only the interest accrued during the impugned assessment year was to be taxed.
The Tribunal held that past profit history should be considered before resorting to estimation. Based on the assessee's past profit history and judicial precedents, the Tribunal reduced the estimated net profit to 2.50%.
The Tribunal held that the expenses for 'Bakshis' and 'Tips' were allowable as deduction, following a previous decision on identical facts. For the interest income difference, the Tribunal directed that only the actual difference of Rs 6,175/- should be taxed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. The penalty was deemed unsustainable because the show cause notice initiating the proceedings was vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's absence before the CIT(A) was due to unavoidable foreign travel. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent under the first proviso to Section 147. The AO did not record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the tax rate, citing a previous decision. However, it allowed the assessee's claim for refund of TDS on interest payments to its head office/branches and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263. The MTM loss was considered an ascertained liability and not contingent, and the AO had made due enquiries before allowing the claim.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the AO passed an ex parte order. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that interest disallowance should be calculated on net interest expenditure after considering interest earned. For administrative expenses, it ruled that a mechanical application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) was inappropriate and directed disallowance on a proportionate basis.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was contrary to the Department's policy.
The Tribunal, following the CBDT Circular, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The circular mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Department was contrary to the policy decision of the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as no one appeared for the hearing. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, citing the principle that the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was contrary to the Department's policy and was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The disputed addition and tax effect were below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not dispose of the case on merits as required by law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.