Loading ITAT cases…
184 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the computation of income at the highest marginal rate. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for a fresh adjudication of all grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment, with the assessee directed to appear before the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, which violates natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had physically possessed the diamonds, as evidenced by a valuation report. The payment was made through cheque, and the source of funds was explained. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
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 allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn.
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 found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the unacknowledged email requests for adjournment. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(Appeals)'s order also failed to meet statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient hearings and examined the evidences regarding labour charges and capital introduction. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals) due to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. It relied on a previous decision where it was held that the withdrawal of recognition of the payee institutions would not affect the assessee's claim for weighted deduction, especially when the assessee was not implicated in any wrongdoing and cross-examination was not provided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellate order also lacked the required written format stating points of determination and reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of warehousing charges, finding no substance in the assessee's argument that these were mere reimbursements to agents. However, the proportionate interest disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, following a jurisdictional High Court decision regarding the utilization of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the revised assessment order disallowing additional depreciation became infructuous as a prior Tribunal order had already set aside the CIT's Section 263 order and restored the original assessment allowing the claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the ALP adjustment for corporate guarantee, stating it's not an international transaction. It also affirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A in the absence of exempt income and allowed the foreign exchange loss as a revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds for investment in a subsidiary engaged in the same business was allowable as a deduction. The commercial expediency of the investment was duly established.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of profit from unaccounted transactions. It also sustained the addition for capital invested in these transactions, finding it to be a necessary working capital requirement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly deducted tax at source from the interest paid. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(Appeals) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty orders to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the penalty orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty orders to be invalid.
The Tribunal declined to adjudicate the appeals on merits because the net tax effect involved in each appeal was less than the prescribed threshold limit of ₹50 lac as per CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal declined to adjudicate the appeals on merits because the net tax effect involved in each appeal was less than the prescribed threshold limit of ₹50 lac as per CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty orders to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty orders to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty orders to be invalid.
The Tribunal, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in similar cases involving the same exchange and broker, held that actual evidence, not circumstantial evidence, should be considered. Therefore, the disallowance of the business loss was reversed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was found to be without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and followed a permissible view in law.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce the directors of shareholding companies and relevant documents for examination and verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and violation of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. This was due to the assessee not receiving notices at its new address and the AO allegedly not considering documents submitted by shareholders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following a precedent, the Tribunal found the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AE, TCG LLC, was the least complex entity due to its simpler functions and lower risks compared to the assessee. Therefore, the AE should be considered the tested party for determining the arm's length price.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that foreign tour expenses were for business exigencies, CSR expenses were for the benefit of employees and surrounding community, and additional depreciation was allowable on capitalized installation costs of machinery.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the jurisdiction to entertain a claim accompanied by a revised computation, even if not accompanied by a revised return before the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions to the AO to ascertain the taxable income based on the revised computation after verification.
The Tribunal held that only the payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 to N. Sushila was in contravention of Section 40A(3). Other cash payments for gold purchases did not exceed the threshold limit in a single instance, thus not violating the provision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's verification of purchases was inadequate, as mere confirmation from the supplier was not sufficient. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary and adequate inquiries, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The ITAT held that dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits violates the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It ruled that written-off investments and amortization of premium are not deductible expenses. Furthermore, the reserve for unexpired risk and disallowances under Section 14A (when computed using Rule 8D) are not to be added back for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that SAP implementation expenses are a necessity for modern businesses and cannot be considered stewardship activities with a 'Nil' arm's length price. The Tribunal also noted that the TPO failed to follow prescribed methods under Section 92C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action was not sustainable in law, as the Assessing Officer had not committed any error in allowing the Section 80P deduction. The Tribunal relied on Gujarat High Court's judgment in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made a plausible view after conducting inquiries, and the CIT could not substitute his own opinion. The revisionary order was quashed as the AO's assessment was not erroneous, and the bank account issue was already addressed by the ITAT's direction.
The Tribunal held that while TDS deduction is a statutory duty, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on sales commission should be restricted to 30% as per a curative amendment. The addition for unexplained cash credit was deleted as the assessee provided confirmations and payments were made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the source of the entire cash deposits, the purchases of sarees and fabrics were not disputed. Therefore, the addition was partly accepted in the assessee's favour, directing assessment at 8% of the impugned bank deposits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in favour of the assessee's sister concern on a similar issue. It held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided bills, made payments by account payee cheques after TDS, and furnished the payee's PAN and IT return acknowledgement.