Loading ITAT cases…
138 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider the Delhi High Court's ruling in Era Infrastructure and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. were part of a list of manipulated companies used for bogus long-term capital gains. Following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit necessary documents to the lower authorities. Therefore, to provide a fair opportunity, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and documents.
The Tribunal admitted the new legal grounds as they could be raised for the first time. Due to the need to examine facts and submissions related to reopening, these grounds, along with the ground on business loss, were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposits of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is confirmed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is only available if the amounts are deposited on or before the due date.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, giving the assessee an opportunity to approach the employer for correction or deposit of TDS. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposits of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is confirmed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is only available if the amounts are deposited on or before the due date.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's view to a limited extent, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the source of the cash deposits. If satisfied, no addition would be made; otherwise, the deposits would be treated in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses are not an international transaction in the assessee's own case for prior years, and for the current year, it remitted the issue back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the issue of allocated expenses was also remitted back to the TPO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, noting that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merit as required. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the payments, though termed 'penalty' in the agreement, were compensatory in nature for non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, not for violation of any law. Therefore, they were allowable as deductions.
The Tribunal held that the foreign tax credit cannot be denied solely due to the technicality of delayed filing of Form-67. The assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit under Section 90 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without considering the merits. The assessee should not be denied an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the supervisory services fee was part of a composite contract and could not be segregated as a stand-alone service. The Assessing Officer's non-examination of this aspect was considered inadequate, leading to prejudice to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure of obtaining prior approval. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF is valid, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that there was indeed a typographical error in its previous order dated May 24, 2023. The error was in mentioning "residential premises of Padam Kumar Jain and group companies" when it should have stated "residential premises of Shri Ganesh Kumar Singhania and group companies". The Tribunal, accepting the submission made by the assessee's authorized representative, directed that the order be corrected. The reasoning was based on rectifying a factual inaccuracy that had inadvertently crept into the original judgment. The operative direction was to amend the specific wording in paragraph 7 of the order dated May 24, 2023. No other issues were decided or left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the bonus was paid within the due date and the gratuity provisions were indeed disallowed twice. Therefore, the disallowances were correctly deleted.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as cross-examination was denied. Furthermore, SEBI's later detailed investigation exonerated the assessees, finding their transactions genuine, thus ruling out the AO's theory of preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as cross-examination was denied. Furthermore, SEBI's later detailed investigation exonerated the assessees, finding their transactions genuine, thus ruling out the AO's theory of preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as cross-examination was denied. Furthermore, SEBI's later detailed investigation exonerated the assessees, finding their transactions genuine, thus ruling out the AO's theory of preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as cross-examination was denied. Furthermore, SEBI's later detailed investigation exonerated the assessees, finding their transactions genuine, thus ruling out the AO's theory of preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing the registration expenses was not erroneous, as it was based on a judicial view supported by High Court precedents and proper enquiry. Therefore, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The tribunal held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution cannot be claimed, even if paid before the return filing due date. Such amounts are deemed income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and was based on borrowed satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Kolkata Bench as the appellate jurisdiction lies with the Indore Bench where the Assessing Officer is situated. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Indore Bench.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Kolkata Bench as the appellate jurisdiction lies with the Indore Bench where the Assessing Officer is situated. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Indore Bench.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The non-appearance of directors was not considered a sole basis for adverse inference, especially when other documentary evidence was available.
The Tribunal held that failure to supply the reasons for reopening to the assessee, despite a specific request, is a mandatory requirement and an incurable defect. Therefore, the assessment framed is bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) as the donee institutions were found to be involved in organized fraud, as established by Supreme Court judgments in similar cases. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the aggregate corporate guarantee fee of 1.2% charged by SCPKL (1%) and the assessee (0.2%) was at arm's length, exceeding the benchmark rate of 0.5%. The assessee did not pledge its assets or assume significant risks, with SCPKL bearing the primary risk.
The Tribunal held that sundry creditors cannot be added to income unless there is remission or cessation of liability and the assessee has written them back. Regarding the flat advance, the Tribunal found the transaction genuine based on the sale agreement and deed, and the payments were by account payee cheques.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy was a factual mistake and an inadvertent error in filing the return. The assessee was entitled to credit for the full tax-paid profit from partnership firms.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Kolkata Bench as the appellate jurisdiction lies with the Indore Bench where the Assessing Officer is situated. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Indore Bench.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of making an addition based on the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value was incorrect without proper evidence. The CIT(A) had also confirmed this addition.
The Tribunal held that the aggregate corporate guarantee fee of 1.2% charged by SCPKL (1%) and the assessee (0.2%) was at arm's length, exceeding the benchmark rate of 0.5%. The assessee did not pledge its assets or assume significant risks, with SCPKL bearing the primary risk.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal held that when the tax rate specified in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is more beneficial, it prevails over the domestic law. Consequently, surcharge and education cess are not leviable on tax calculated as per the DTAA rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the addition related to share trading loss, finding it to be an attempt to generate bogus losses. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the addition on sale of securities, deeming it a double addition. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal concerning the interest income discrepancy, noting it was due to a mistaken entry that was subsequently rectified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the reasons for reopening were not valid.
For the first appeal, the tribunal held that failure to deposit employee contributions within the due date disentitles the assessee to deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. For the second appeal, the tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no tax-free income has been earned in the current year, setting aside the issue to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, directing consideration of the additional documents and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.