Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's failure and the assessee's medical condition as reasonable causes. It further held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT was barred by limitation and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of commission expenditure, finding it to be genuine and supported by documentary evidence. However, it confirmed the addition for a portion of the bogus loans while deleting the rest, and partly allowed the interest disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the claimed business loss. The assessee failed to produce any reliable evidence to substantiate the transactions or the incurred loss, even during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the security premium reserve, when transferred to an LLP upon conversion, should be treated as income from other sources under Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that additions related to brought forward balances from previous years and liabilities paid before the due date of filing the return were not sustainable under Section 43B. It also found that employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return should not be disallowed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's contentions regarding reversal of the amount and TDS deduction on the remaining part. Similarly, the issue of incorrect calculation of tax refund was also restored.
The Tribunal restored the issue of pension disallowance to the AO for verification of payment before the due date. For the PF & ESI contribution, the Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and allowed the deduction as payments were made before the due date of filing the return.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as there were no adverse consequences in the subsequent assessment proceedings. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in getting the accounts audited, considering it was the assessee's first time under Section 44AB and he was not conversant with the provisions. Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 without conducting an independent inquiry or recording a finding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT had merely set aside the order for fresh assessment, which is not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made enhancements without issuing a show-cause notice to the assessee and ignoring the details furnished. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to the difficult circumstances during the Covid pandemic. The issue is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the 50% disallowance of business expenses, finding factual differences from preceding years and lack of supporting documents. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remitted to the AO for re-computation based on jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked clarity regarding the specific investments doubted and the basis for reclassifying the addition. Due to the unclear findings and the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the assessment order was invalid as it was passed in the name of a non-existent company. An assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the payment was a compounding fee for an offense prohibited by law, making it not allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's attempt to misrepresent the nature of the payment was also noted.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond four years is invalid if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the assessee had made full disclosures during the original assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 78,55,136/- made by the AO by applying a 15% profit rate on alleged undisclosed purchases. The Tribunal also restored issues regarding partner's remuneration and set off of unabsorbed depreciation/losses to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and their request for withdrawal. The appeal was treated as dismissed based on this request.
The Tribunal held that the enquiry made by the Assessing Officer regarding the depreciation claim was incomplete as the assessee's response was inadequate. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order on this issue was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to sundry creditors, finding that it was a trade liability and not covered by Section 68. The Tribunal also upheld the reduction in the net profit rate, considering comparable cases and previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 without appreciating the facts correctly. The AO had properly examined the sales mismatch issue with supporting evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal corrected the address of the assessee and the names of the representatives for the appellant and respondent as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to sundry creditors, finding that it was a trade liability and not covered by Section 68. The Tribunal also upheld the reduction in the net profit rate, considering comparable cases and previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of capital gains on the land sale was based on presumptions and assumptions without a reasonable basis, and that there was no provision in the Act to compute deemed capital gains on the retirement of a partner for the assessment year in question. The matter of land sale was remanded to the AO for proper valuation by the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (reserves and surplus) which were more than its investments in shares and securities. Therefore, it was presumed that investments were made out of interest-free funds, and no disallowance of proportionate interest was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not heard on merit by the lower authorities, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond four years is invalid if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the assessee had made full disclosures during the original assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 40 Lakhs did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAA because it was not based on any material discovered during the search and was a conditional offer. Therefore, the penalty was not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not provided any findings on the assessee's plea regarding double taxation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to verify the plea and adjudicate it with a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that the ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee another opportunity. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that in quantum proceedings, the loss from derivative transactions was allowed as a business loss, leading to a reduction in the overall income. Since the net income did not increase, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments beyond four years is invalid if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the assessee had made full disclosures during the original assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year 2017-18, the deduction for employee's contribution remitted before the filing of the return of income is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. In a limited scrutiny assessment, the AO is restricted to the specific issue for which the case was selected, and the PCIT cannot revise on other aspects.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was indeed ex-parte and that the non-appearance was likely due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the issue to the PCIT's file for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15, reversing the CIT(A)'s deletion of foreign currency loss but allowing depreciation on it. For AY 2015-16, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15, reversing the CIT(A)'s deletion of foreign currency loss but allowing depreciation on it. For AY 2015-16, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment year under appeal.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that TDS was wrongly deducted but restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for examination. The AO is to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case and then decide the matter.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had exercised his discretion under Section 55A by accepting the assessee's registered valuer's report, which was a plausible view and not unsustainable in law.