Loading ITAT cases…
252 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the AO did not act fairly as he ignored the assessee's belated reply to a notice under Section 142(1) and proceeded with best judgment assessment without giving a proper opportunity. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unwarranted as the discrepancy arose solely from a bonafide mistake in currency conversion, not from any misrepresentation of remuneration received.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not explicitly state that taxable income had escaped assessment. Citing a High Court precedent, the Tribunal found the reassessment unsustainable and quashed it.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any corresponding transactions or provide evidence for the bogus loss addition. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to verify the facts and determine the correct turnover after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to apply the propositions of law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court and the Special Bench of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, with retrospective effect, meant that the AO's inaction in not referring the matter to the TPO did not render the assessment erroneous. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were reversed.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the ex-parte order and the assessee not being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence and that the assessee's claim for deduction should be allowed if the recipient foundation was approved and the donation was made. The AO should have provided an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the opening balance of the previous year, which is the closing balance of the current year, must be deducted from the peak credit calculation. The case was set aside to the AO for recalculation.
The tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits is not permissible. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the computation of capital losses on shares, dismissing the revenue's ground. For ground 4, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that TUIHL is an Indian company and the sale of its shares resulted in capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible. Therefore, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the opening cash balance from earlier years, a complete disallowance was not justified. Therefore, a partial addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the date of possession and payment of balance consideration are the clinching factors for Section 54F. Since the agreement to sell along with possession of the new property was on 15.06.2012, which was within one year of the sale deed registration of the old property on 12.03.2013, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 43B is not applicable to government loans. However, it disagreed with the CIT(A) regarding the grant-in-aid, holding that it was received on revenue account and thus taxable.
The Tribunal held that the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation is a right of the assessee and must be mentioned in the AO's order. The issue was set aside to the AO for granting the allowance in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of Section 40A(3) is to prevent tax evasion and unaccounted money. If transactions are genuine and there's no nexus with tax evasion, disallowance may not be warranted, especially when payments are directly deposited into the supplier's bank account and acknowledged.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, as the reopening was based on verification of information and not tangible material. The AO also failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was not sustained based on the cited precedents.
The tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law because the notice issued for penalty proceedings was defective, failing to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on this matter.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding merit in the assessee's explanation that the discrepancy was due to service tax, income from previous financial years, and reimbursements which are not taxable income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to this prayer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case and the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the rate of tax applicable to foreign companies was decided against the assessee in earlier years and dismissed that ground. However, regarding the unfunded pension payments, the Tribunal found that these were effectively payments to employees as a welfare measure and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim of double addition and the assessee undertook to produce books of accounts for all relevant years.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of Rs. 45,00,000/- addition back to the AO for examination of whether the sundry creditors represented brought forward balances. The addition of Rs. 20,69,050/- under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as TDS was not applicable on hiring charges.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in cases of short deduction of TDS, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowance.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) failed to follow the procedural requirements for disposing of an appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged a typographical error in its previous order. It rectified the order to state that the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided documentary evidence of share sales, her explanation for the source of the impugned deposits was not sufficiently discharged. Therefore, the additions were restricted to 30%.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to the possibility of double assessment of sales income. The assessee did not press the challenge against the 8% gross profit assessment.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant year. Following judicial pronouncements, the disallowance was deleted.
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 share-subscribing companies and relevant documents for verification.
The Tribunal held that the investor party was duly served under Section 131 of the Act during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer should have proceeded with factual verification rather than drawing adverse inferences. The addition was directed to be deleted as the investor was not asked to prove the genuineness of the share capital.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is a nullity, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to this and other procedural failures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. It also held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to refer valuation issues to the DVO even if the assessee doesn't explicitly request it.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to a lump sum of ₹2,00,000/-, treating the entire sum as business income from transportation and assessing only the profit element. This was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to specify the amount of escaped income in the reasons for reopening was fatal to the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on interest income earned from surplus funds invested in banks. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance on a netting basis.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without discussing the merits of the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to prove exclusive business use of the vehicle. However, it found no excessive element in the claim compared to other assessment years and allowed a lump sum disallowance of ₹1,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective withdrawal of approval for the research foundation cannot deny the assessee's deduction claim. Following previous judgments, the disallowance was deemed incorrect.