Loading ITAT cases…
241 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing due to non-receipt of notice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the assessment year in question, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to submit additional evidence, and the remand report was to be provided for rebuttal.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without proper opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine the parties who denied the discount. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to bring cogent evidence to prove the discount was bogus and that the assessee incurred the expense for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 44,801/- on account of interest was not sustainable as investments were made from own funds. The remaining disallowance of Rs. 8,04,966/- was restored to the AO for verification based on the Kolkata High Court's decision in CIT vs REI Agro Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and the proviso to Section 201(1), being curative and retrospective, applied. The lenders had confirmed that the interest was included in their income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting new evidence and contentions without giving the AO an opportunity to examine them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a proper remand report and adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of ALP adjustments to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. Similarly, the issue of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation was also remanded for fresh adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be applied to book profits under Section 115JB, restoring the issue to the AO for independent calculation. It also upheld the deletion of ESOP expenses based on precedent, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding exchange loss.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to a communication gap. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not served notice of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective. Therefore, if the deductee included the interest income, no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal deserved to be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed minimum limit. CBDT circulars are binding on revenue authorities, and this circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income earned, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest was upheld as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the proviso.
The Tribunal held that the profit from undisclosed turnover of rice should be estimated at 1.5% of such turnover. It reasoned that the Revenue should not apply different standards to individuals in the same trade.
The Tribunal held that there was no conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade. The transfer of land, which would attract capital gains, occurred in Assessment Year 2008-09 when possession was handed over after obtaining building plan sanction, not in the years under appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions should be based on evidence, not on general reports, human probabilities, suspicion, or conjectures. Since the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, the additions made by the revenue authorities were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's employment was exercised in the UK and he was a UK tax resident. However, the tax residency certificate was submitted for the first time before the CIT(A), violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of the certificate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance. The assessee had provided extensive documentation for its share transactions, and no adverse findings were made by SEBI or other regulatory authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's disallowance was based on investigation reports without furnishing specific details to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions based on general reports, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures, and surmises are not sustainable. Decisions must be based on evidence, and the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remained unchallenged.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the departmental policy. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits and that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) due to a notice sent to the wrong address. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on grounds of natural justice, as the original appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's medical condition.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no exempt dividend income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The disallowance was deleted based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by furnishing confirmations from the purchasers, who had also proven their identity and creditworthiness through income tax details. The amounts involved were small, and cash flow statements were not necessary for such transactions.
The Tribunal held that there was no conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade. The transfer of land, which would attract capital gains, occurred in Assessment Year 2008-09 when possession was handed over after obtaining building plan sanction, not in the years under appeal.
The Tribunal held that the subject land is agricultural land and situated beyond the requisite kilometers from any municipality or cantonment board, thus not falling within the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14). The Tribunal relied on the assessee's submission of revenue records classifying the land as agricultural and a report from the Block Land & Land Reform Officer, along with the judicial precedent in DCIT vs. Smt. Laxmi Singh. Therefore, gains derived from the sale of such land cannot be brought to tax as capital gains. Regarding the value of the building, the Tribunal directed the AO to determine its value in terms of Section 50C(2) and grant deduction for the indexed cost of the building as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment, following the High Court's dismissal of the revenue's appeal in prior years. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s view that software expenses were revenue in nature, citing its own previous order and a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), considering only investments that yielded exempt income, following a previous precedent.
The Tribunal held that a bank reconciliation statement for the year ending March 31, 2011, is crucial for proper reflection of facts. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to examine the date of receipt and bank reconciliation statements.
The Tribunal held that the principle of consistency applies, as similar deductions were allowed in earlier assessment years on the same facts. The Tribunal also found that the ADDA was registered under Section 12A, which was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation, not claimed due to the 180-day rule in the prior year, could be claimed in the subsequent year. It also held that the eligibility of a long-term capital loss for set-off should be examined in the year it is sought to be set off, not when it was incurred.
The Tribunal held that the share premium is a capital receipt and not taxable as income for the assessment year in question. It followed established judicial precedents that amounts received on the issue of share capital, including premium, are on capital account and not income.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not fully comply with the directions given by the CIT under Section 263 to examine the share capital issue thoroughly. The AO primarily relied on the non-appearance of erstwhile directors, to whom summons were sent to an old address without informing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the subsidiaries were not 'Fees for Technical Services' and were not chargeable to tax in India as the subsidiaries did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the company was the beneficial owner of the investments as the funds were provided by the company and the transactions were accounted for in its books. The use of the Director's demat account was merely a routing mechanism.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circular regarding monetary limits was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee to explain the difference in sales, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.