Loading ITAT cases…
247 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' order was based on surmise and conjecture, not tangible material. The transactions were through banking channels, supported by evidence, and matched with NSE details. The modifications were within permitted timelines, and no violation of rules was pointed out.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on share transfers had been decided in favour of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the impugned additions were deleted.
The tribunal held that Section 14A disallowances are not to be subjected to MAT adjustment, following established precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments concerning domestic transactions, finding the benchmarking exercise by the assessee to be appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the investments were reflected in the books and the source of funds was evidenced by payments from disclosed bank accounts, thus the source was satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A, even though it was initially claimed under Section 10B due to a technical error. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for share trading and forward contract losses.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowances for the four expense heads by 50% each, as the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence and the lower authorities did not provide comparable instances. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the tax liability.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely for non-appearance without deciding on merits is not sustainable. The interest of justice requires the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on share transfers had been decided in favour of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the impugned additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the income from warehousing should be treated as business income, not income from house property, as the assessee was not the owner of the property.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ₹5,79,307 to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. The balance addition of ₹4,20,693 was affirmed as undisclosed income.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in declining to admit the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A after calling for a remand report. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.
The ITAT noted that the assessee had not claimed any deduction under Section 80P in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in disallowing the interest claim based on Section 80P. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restricted the addition on alleged sales to the net profit component at 10% and reduced the ad hoc disallowance of labour charges from 5% to 2%. These modifications were made without prejudice to future assessment years.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of the discount claim and made a lump sum addition for the cash deposits, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for hearing and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80HHC regarding DEPB license sales do not have retrospective effect. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the Section 80HHC deduction and to adopt the netting principle for interest income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the cash payments were made in a remote village without banking facilities, thus falling under the exception provided by Rule 6DD(g).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It found that the assessee had provided adequate documentation to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicant companies, and that the CIT(A)'s findings were justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit after condoning the delay. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment proceedings where the Assessing Officer does not accept the return filed by the assessee. Section 292BB does not dispense with the requirement of such mandatory notices.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), holding that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the matters back for disposal on merit.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on share transfers had been decided in favour of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the impugned additions were deleted.
The tribunal held that Section 14A disallowances are not to be subjected to MAT adjustment, following established precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments concerning domestic transactions, finding the benchmarking exercise by the assessee to be appropriate.
The tribunal held that Section 14A disallowances are not to be subjected to MAT adjustment, following established precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments concerning domestic transactions, finding the benchmarking exercise by the assessee to be appropriate.
The tribunal held that Section 14A disallowances are not to be subjected to MAT adjustment, following established precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of transfer pricing adjustments concerning domestic transactions, finding the benchmarking exercise by the assessee to be appropriate.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessment order was indeed passed beyond the statutory limitation period. The AO failed to provide any evidence to counter the assessee's claim of delayed service.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal held that if reassessment proceedings are initiated for a specific reason, but no addition is made on that ground, and instead, additions are made on different issues, such reassessment is not sustainable. The addition made was beyond the scope of the original reassessment notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit after condoning the delay. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar issues in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification in line with the co-ordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not dispute the assessee's sales or treat purchases as bogus. However, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned amount.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the investments were reflected in the books and the source of funds was evidenced by payments from disclosed bank accounts, thus the source was satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained as the Assessing Officer had not granted sufficient opportunity, and the CIT(A) did not apply established legal principles for cases with substantial share premium and negligible turnover. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be levied solely on the basis of a voluntary offer made to buy peace of mind, especially when no corroborating incriminating evidence was found during the search. The penalty was restricted to the amount of cash found.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the TDS issue to the AO for de novo adjudication with liberty to the assessee to adduce evidence. For travelling expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of the entire addition, stating that ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting books of account is legally untenable.