Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made for belated payment of employees' contribution towards PF if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the incentives paid to retailers were not commission on which the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and that the cash received was a trade advance adjusted against future sales, not income. Therefore, the disallowance and addition were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce crucial evidence, including the statement of Shri Kathotia and the inquiry report, despite repeated opportunities. The Tribunal also found inconsistencies in the seized document and a subsequent retraction by Shri Kathotia, casting doubt on the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to verify if any exempt income was earned and to ensure disallowance under Section 14A does not exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the trust deed clearly indicated the income was solely for the benefit of the nine deities, not the shebaits. Therefore, the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate, making the maximum marginal rate assessment incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 without conducting a preliminary inquiry or forming a definitive conclusion that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous. The revision was deemed bad in law for AY 2012-13.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to undelivered notices. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the adjournment application, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's absence. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of advertisement charges disallowance to the AO for verification of TDS compliance in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance of remuneration to the two partners was deleted as there was no prohibition against working partners drawing remuneration from multiple firms.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to undelivered notices. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for LTCG. The Tribunal noted that previous decisions of the Tribunal had found the scrips of KAFL to be genuine and allowed similar LTCG claims.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's AR's absence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, including the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and the assessment order of the AO. The matter was restored to the AO for adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the appeal electronically, as evidenced by the acknowledgment number. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payment was compensation for the cancellation of a construction contract and not 'fees for technical services'. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the AO erred by not rejecting the assessee's books of accounts before resorting to estimation and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanation for the discounted sales.
The Tribunal restored the issue of undisclosed income from TATA Group to the AO for fresh inquiry. It dismissed the disallowance of education expenses as personal. Disallowances for cash payments, demurrage, lorry maintenance, and construction expenses were also restored to the AO for verification. Disallowances for business promotion and travelling expenses were restricted to 25%, and interest expenses were restored for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 without conducting a preliminary inquiry or forming a definitive conclusion that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous. The revision was deemed bad in law for AY 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of lease rentals to the AO for de novo adjudication with liberty to the assessee to produce additional evidence. The interest income issue was also remanded to the AO for verification of independent evidence. The addition on account of provisions for employee benefits for book profit calculation was deleted.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's absence. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the trust deed clearly indicated the income was solely for the benefit of the nine deities, not the shebaits. Therefore, the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate, making the maximum marginal rate assessment incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The consequential issue of commission income was also remitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The consequential issue of commission income was also remitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's absence. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting the protective addition without awaiting the outcome of the substantive assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the expenditure claimed through self-made vouchers. The AO's defects were not sufficient to reject the entire books of account.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the commission payment addition, finding it to be a legitimate business expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. It also upheld the allowance of the written-off advance as a revenue expenditure/trading loss, as the technology transfer was not an outright acquisition of a capital asset.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the principle of consistency applies when there's no material change in facts. The assessee's consistent treatment of investment income as capital gains in earlier years, accepted by the Revenue, prevented the Revenue from taking a contrary stand.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessments made under Section 263, as the said orders were already quashed. The Tribunal also noted that some appeals were liable for dismissal due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessments made under Section 263. The Tribunal found that since the Section 263 orders were quashed, the subsequent assessments based on them were non-est.
The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed by the ITAT, the subsequent revised assessment order passed by the AO became non-est. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the revised assessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessments made under Section 263. The Tribunal found that since the Section 263 orders were quashed, the subsequent assessments based on them were non-est.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessments made under Section 263. The Tribunal found that since the Section 263 orders were quashed, the subsequent assessments based on them were non-est.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessments made under Section 263. The Tribunal found that since the Section 263 orders were quashed, the subsequent assessments based on them were non-est.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices of hearing were not received, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the sale price to the group concern was at arm's length and the advertisement expenses were genuinely incurred for the assessee's own products. The disallowances made by the AO were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for receiving the loan in cash. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting additions made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of substantive assessment proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).