Loading ITAT cases…
184 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that since the assessee had not claimed the amount as a deduction, its disallowance by the AO was not justified. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground related to late deposit of ESI and PF, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the partnership deed did not provide for charging interest on debit balances and that the debit balance in the partner's account had been carried forward for several years without prior additions.
The Tribunal held that the restriction on carrying forward unabsorbed business losses for more than 8 years under Section 72 does not apply to the computation of adjusted book profit under Section 115JB, as Section 115JB(1) starts with a non-obstante clause.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to present evidence and that there was a lack of proper inquiry by the authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the case to the AO. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce the directors of share subscriber companies and relevant documents for examination.
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to a dispute over the service of notice of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) by following the jurisdictional High Court's decision on short deduction. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, relying on its own prior decisions and High Court rulings concerning banking companies.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the cash credits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the restriction on carrying forward unabsorbed business losses for more than 8 years under Section 72 does not apply to the computation of adjusted book profit under Section 115JB, as Section 115JB(1) starts with a non-obstante clause.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to comply with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding the selection of comparables and did not pass a speaking order. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the partnership deed did not provide for charging interest on debit balances and that the debit balance in the partner's account had been carried forward for several years without prior additions.
The Tribunal held that for invoking Section 263, both conditions - that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - must be satisfied. In this case, the tax liability under MAT was higher than under normal provisions, even considering the disputed depreciation, thus not prejudicing the revenue. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the agreement between the assessee and the hospital indicated a professional services relationship, not an employer-employee one. Therefore, the retainership fees were correctly assessable as income from profession, and the disallowed expenses were allowed.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the CIT(A)'s order and noted that the revenue sought a remand for fresh adjudication due to new evidence filed before the CIT(A). Both parties agreed to a remand.
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A/143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This was because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the AO's actions were based on information already on record.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee provided bills from M/s. Aparna Fashion Pvt. Ltd. The AO's adverse inference was based on an incorrect verification from a similarly named entity.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments which treat interest income of tea companies as business income, eligible for apportionment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce details and documents to explain the cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order in violation of natural justice, as the AR was present on the last date of hearing. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the disallowance of sundry balances written off, as the assessee failed to prove it was income in prior years. However, the tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow the advance tax credit.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after getting the property valued by the DVO.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had furnished complete details for the transactions, and the Assessing Officer could not point out any defects or infirmities.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had furnished complete details for the transactions, and the Assessing Officer could not point out any defects or infirmities.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have passed an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the carry forward of long-term capital loss and the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity. The deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also upheld based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning that TDS was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that since the main addition under Section 68 was deleted and accepted by the Revenue, the consequential addition under Section 69C could not be sustained. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the carry forward of long-term capital loss and the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity. The deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also upheld based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning that TDS was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that since the main addition under Section 68 was deleted and accepted by the Revenue, the consequential addition under Section 69C could not be sustained. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessments for both assessment years was bad in law. The reasons recorded lacked independent application of mind by the AO and were not supported by sufficient material or proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessments for both assessment years was bad in law. The reasons recorded lacked independent application of mind by the AO and were not supported by sufficient material or proper verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance was not warranted as the assessee did not earn any exempt income. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Ashika Global Securities Ltd.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.