Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that a defective notice initiating penalty proceedings renders the penalty unsustainable. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after verifying facts in light of judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that car hire charges related to plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriages, if paid in cash not exceeding Rs. 35,000 per instance, are covered by the proviso to Section 40A(3) and thus not disallowable. However, electricity, power, and fuel expenses, even for a transport business, do not qualify for this exception.
The Tribunal held that a defective notice under Section 274, which failed to strike off irrelevant portions and thus did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, renders the penalty unsustainable. The penalty was directed to be cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a sufficient opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer during the assessment stage. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Co. vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to 30% of the expenses. This decision was based on a previous ruling that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) restricting disallowance to 30% has retrospective effect.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) due to procedural deficiencies. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. This was to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance as the notices were not received, supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. This was to be done after disposing of the appeal for the preceding assessment year and providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to explain the cash credits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the reassessment was void ab initio due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, all additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was more appropriate than CUP for transfer pricing adjustments, and that the provision of corporate guarantee does not constitute an international transaction as it does not have a bearing on profits, income, losses, or assets.
The Tribunal held that the addition of entire sundry creditors could not be sustained as the AO had accepted the purchases and sales. However, since accommodation entries were provided, a commission of 0.25% on the transaction value was treated as income.
The Tribunal held that retrospective cancellation of the research foundation's approval does not affect the assessee's claim for weighted deduction, as the approval was valid at the time of donation. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO on business and travel expenses.
The Tribunal held that retrospective cancellation of the research foundation's approval does not affect the assessee's claim for weighted deduction, as the approval was valid at the time of donation. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO on business and travel expenses.
The Tribunal held that making charges are inevitable in the hosiery business and were consistently allowed in earlier years. The claimed percentage was comparable to previous years, and no specific defects were pointed out by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act. The assessee's failure to request such a reference does not absolve the AO of this duty.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) must provide the assessee with a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment was correct, as similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and allowed the deletion of education cess disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principles of natural justice as it was passed ex-parte without giving a proper opportunity of being heard. The order also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the condonation of delay application and dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be a sufficient cause and directed the matter to be restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment was correct, as similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and allowed the deletion of education cess disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's name, reputation, and credentials constituted a separate intangible capital asset. The payment received for allowing the company to utilize these was a transfer of a capital asset, thus exigible to capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that only profits derived from exports are eligible for deduction under Section 10AA, and ancillary income like interest from Fixed Deposits is not eligible. The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, restoring the Assessing Officer's addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the initial admissions were retracted and not corroborated by evidence. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance for delayed PF contribution, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of Cades Digitech Private Limited as a comparable was based on a wrong assumption of facts and directed its verification. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the assessee's claim for working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the cash credits by producing the concerned share subscribers for verification and providing relevant documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance and that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order also did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the IT Act.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. This was due to the non-receipt of notices by the assessee and the procedural deficiencies in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found the assessee's pleadings prima facie correct and restored the issue of correctness of impugned cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider peak credit and telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on motor car expenses from 50% to 20% as it was considered excessive. The disallowance of interest expenses was upheld as the assessee failed to establish business expediency for interest-free loans.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was on a different issue than the one which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable without a fresh notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal found the assessee's pleadings prima facie correct and restored the issue of correctness of impugned cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider peak credit and telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was on a different issue than the one which formed the basis for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable without a fresh notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses are not international transactions, directing deletion of TP adjustments. For R&T expenditure, the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of cash discount and advertisement expenses was also set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding commission payments and sales. Citing High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the commission payments to be genuine business expenditure.
The Tribunal set aside the issues of undisclosed stock and inflated purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to consider the audited accounts and additional evidence filed by the assessee, admitting the evidence as it was crucial to the matter.
The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, holding that the property was purchased by the partnership firm, and any addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be in the hands of the firm, not the individual. The CIT(Appeals) also noted that the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) came into effect after the agreement for purchase.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee three effective opportunities of hearing. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not rebutted the assessee's counsel's affidavit.
The Tribunal found that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor parties were not factually verified. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the case should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded due to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealing income. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal deserved to be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which are binding on revenue authorities and apply retrospectively.
The Tribunal found the assessee's pleadings prima facie correct and restored the issue of correctness of impugned cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider peak credit and telescoping benefits.