Loading ITAT cases…
235 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was not justified as it involved an under-assessment and not an apparent mistake. The Tribunal noted that the AO himself treated the issue as under-assessment, which goes beyond the scope of rectification proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by not establishing the genuineness of the share capital and premium. The lower authorities' actions were not considered perverse, and the assessee's non-compliance led to the addition being upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, which was below the revised threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular's revised monetary limits were found to be applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of employees' PF contribution, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Similarly, the addition of retention money was deleted, following precedents from the jurisdictional ITAT and High Court, which held that retention money is not income until conditions are fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the future development expenses were not contingent but represented an ascertained liability, especially when revenue from sold flats had already been realized. The method of accounting followed by the assessee was consistent and aligned with the matching principle.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the sub-contractor expenses, finding that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on PF/ESI contributions, following a Supreme Court decision, and also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation, relying on Bombay High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that taking a hand loan from one's mother for temporary financial accommodation to tide over business expediency constitutes a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not warranted.
The tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment, stating it was not res integra and had been deleted in a prior year. For Section 14A disallowances, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation based on a proportionate formula.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the Terminal Excise Duty refund claim without proper inquiry made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the issue concerning VAT refund was not found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the crucial aspect of the assessee's status regarding Section 12AA registration. The relief under Section 11(1)(d) was therefore to be decided afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for service and establishment charges should be allowed in full, following its own previous decisions where similar claims were accepted. The Tribunal noted that the department had consistently allowed such deductions in preceding and succeeding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings under Section 263 were unsustainable as the original assessment order itself had been quashed. Therefore, the appeal against the revision order was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's factual findings were unclear regarding whether the father maintained separate portfolios for investment and trading. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to satisfy the conditions precedent for reopening the assessment under Section 147. The reasons recorded were found to be vague and lacked a rational nexus to the alleged escapement of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to satisfy the conditions precedent for reopening the assessment under Section 147. The reasons recorded were not specific enough to indicate escapement of income, and the AO's actions were not based on independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act applies only to the transfer of 'land or building or both' and not to the transfer of leasehold rights. Therefore, the deeming fiction of Section 50C cannot be invoked in this case.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on application money for tax-free bonds is also eligible for exemption under Section 10(15). Furthermore, it ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked for short deduction of tax when tax has been deducted under a bona fide belief, even if it's under the wrong provision.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific instances or basis for disallowing expenses related to house property income. The Tribunal also noted that the claim for interest deduction under Section 24(b) was not properly verified.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law because the reasons recorded did not state that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, which is a condition for re-opening after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year when the original assessment was under section 143(3).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the lenders were registered NBFCs, had filed their returns, and that the assessee had repaid the loans in subsequent years. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the AO, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to employee PF/ESI contributions and interest on late TDS payments.
The Tribunal reduced the ad-hoc disallowance on certain expenses from 10% to 5%. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on auto hire expenses, finding no justification for it.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law because the reasons recorded did not state that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, which is a condition for re-opening after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year when the original assessment was under section 143(3).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure a fair hearing in accordance with the law.
The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and to rectify any defects.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, citing violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to violations of natural justice.
The tribunal set aside Ground No. 3 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing them to follow specific Supreme Court decisions. The appeal was allowed in part.
The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the unrecovered amount of Rs. 1.62 crore, representing commission from an illegal activity, constituted a business loss incidental to the activity and was therefore deductible. The addition made by the AO was not warranted.
The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee paid a cost of Rs. 10,000. This was to ensure natural justice and provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that once income offered under IDS, 2016 is accepted and taxes paid, the assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for items already declared under the scheme. Such revision would be against the spirit of the IDS.
The Tribunal held that Section 47(xiv) was not applicable due to the nature of the property transferred and the valuation method used by the AO. It also deleted additions related to closing stock and allowed Ground No. 3 for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of disallowances. The Tribunal agreed that reimbursement of expenditure does not attract TDS obligations and that depreciation should be allowed based on consistency in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were found to be vague and lacked specific details regarding the nature and parties involved in the alleged bogus transactions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld its directions regarding the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and set off of business loss. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Both parties agreed that principles of natural justice were violated, and the AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to complete the assessment afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all three appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all three appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all three appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance and noted that the CIT(Appeals) order did not comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity. The order also failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 250(6).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that their written submissions were not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal reversed its earlier order dated 15/06/1997. This reversal was in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, which had disposed of a reference application in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the donation of Rs. 7 lakhs to the maternity charitable organization was a valid application of income as it aligned with the trust's objectives and its genuineness was not controverted. The issue regarding the calculation of 15% accumulation on gross vs. net receipts was also addressed, referencing prior tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had committed factual mistakes. It held that if the assessee had interest-free funds, the presumption should be that partner drawings were from these funds, citing relevant High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe' as required by Section 147. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to substantiate the belief that income had escaped assessment.