Loading ITAT cases…
184 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the delayed deposit of employee contributions, stating it was allowable if paid before the return filing due date. For the cessation of liability issue, the Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bad debt claim satisfied the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) and (2) of the Act, as the debt was written off after remaining outstanding for a significant period and the legal position supports deduction upon write-off.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessment records and submissions, violating natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adjudicate the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), indicating sufficient compliance by the assessee. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in law and fact by terming the assessment order erroneous. It was noted that Section 92BA(i) was omitted retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2017, rendering the PCIT's direction to refer to the TPO invalid. The AO had also conducted inquiries regarding the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments that yielded dividend during the previous year. The Assessing Officer's calculation of 0.5% of average investment was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of retention money, stating it's not taxable until realized, following the principle of conservatism. It also upheld the deletion of capital gains, agreeing that the transfer for equity shares did not constitute a slump sale as per judicial precedents.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to adjudicate the issue based on the final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and fact by making the addition. The genuineness of the agreement and part payment was not doubted, and there was no material to restrict the statutory provision to registered agreements only.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the evidence and written submissions of the assessee and did not provide an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable as the AO had not formed a valid reason to believe that taxable income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded did not establish that the assessee had resorted to fraudulent client code modification or that undisclosed income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry, collected necessary documents from the assessee and the broker, and was satisfied with the explanation. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was based on erroneous premises and lacked jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the AO should obtain a valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the cost of acquisition for LTCG. The AO was directed to compute the LTCG after considering the DVO's report and the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated natural justice by not sharing the adverse material with the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cessation of liabilities was not sustainable, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. For labour and consultancy charges, the disallowance was restricted to 15% of the claimed amount.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 14,15,000/- entry could be subsumed within the Rs. 45,00,000/- surrendered during the survey, as other diary entries were reconciled. The Tribunal also directed that standard deduction be granted on the confirmed rental income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the department's policy decision due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that while a formal notice under Section 263 might not be mandatory, an opportunity of being heard is essential as per the principles of natural justice. Since this opportunity was absent, the case was remitted back.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective for not specifying the charge, whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee when there are conflicting judgments, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of share application money as the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the lender were explained. However, it directed initiation of proceedings under Section 269SS for the cash transaction.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on findings from a subsequent assessment year where a co-ordinate bench had restored the quantum issue back to the AO for fresh verification. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the penalty in light of the final conclusion in the other assessment year's quantum issue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal ruled that such a defective notice renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the commission payments to overseas agents were not taxable in India, the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for PF & ESI contributions as they were paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on staff welfare is allowable as a business expenditure. The lower authorities erred in disallowing the impugned claim for gifts to staff.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. Following Supreme Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider any additional evidence, call for a remand report from the AO, and decide the appeals after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for penalty under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for penalty under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty.
The Tribunal held that when the foundation of an order (the revisional order) is removed, all consequential orders (the AO's reassessment order) also fall. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that when the foundation of an order (the revisional order) is removed, all consequential orders (the AO's reassessment order) also fall. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider any additional evidence, call for a remand report from the AO, and decide the appeals after hearing the assessee.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, violating natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) and also before the AO. Therefore, both orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of being heard at both the assessment and appellate stages. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that credit for the DDT payment should be given if it was indeed made for the relevant assessment year, despite the inadvertent error in the challan. Consequently, the interest charged under Section 115P should be deleted.
The Tribunal found that an effective hearing did not occur due to the file not being traced. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 799 days, finding reasonable cause supported by a medical certificate and affidavit. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as it was based solely on third-party information without allowing cross-examination and without giving credence to the assessee's supporting documents. The assessee had provided purchase bills, VAT registration, and bank transaction details.
The Tribunal held that STCG on which Security Transaction Tax (STT) was paid should be taxed at 15%. It also allowed the deduction for donations made to the specified temples under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have inquired with the creditors' Assessing Officers regarding the genuineness of the transaction. Since the creditors' returns were not rejected, they should be accepted as genuine when identity and transaction genuineness are established.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the specific legal issue raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reassessment due to the absence of a Section 143(2) notice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the difference, with only a minor discrepancy of Rs. 988/- remaining. Since the Revenue could not point out any error in the reconciliation, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be cancelled.