Loading ITAT cases…
96 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found no evidence of service of the demand notice on the assessee and decided to give the assessee an opportunity to defend their appeals on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal reviewed the records and agreed to rectify the typographical error. The correct PAN number of the assessee company will be reflected in the order.
The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF & ESI not paid within the statutory due dates are not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited. However, the disallowance of club subscription expenses made under section 143(1) was deleted as it did not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the explanation to Section 14A was considered prospective.
For AY 2011-12, the tribunal restricted the addition to 8% of the disputed purchases, considering it as suppressed profit. For AY 2012-13, the addition was deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal found no evidence of service of the demand notice on the assessee and decided to give the assessee an opportunity to defend their appeals on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for additional evidence, admitting the tax residency certificate. The Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the explanation to Section 14A was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF & ESI not paid within the statutory due dates are not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited. However, the disallowance of club subscription expenses made under section 143(1) was deleted as it did not fall within the purview of prima facie adjustments.
The assessee's counsel, with the client's instruction, withdrew all grounds of appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider the documents submitted by the assessee regarding share capital and premium. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. It reasoned that specifying 'Attaining the objective of the Trust' is a valid purpose for accumulation, and the actual application of funds for objectives will be debated in future years. Therefore, the CIT's action was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea of lack of proper communication and opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that there was no merit to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal found no evidence of service of the demand notice on the assessee and decided to give the assessee an opportunity to defend their appeals on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
For AY 2011-12, the tribunal restricted the addition to 8% of the disputed purchases, considering it as suppressed profit. For AY 2012-13, the addition was deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that once insolvency proceedings commenced and were approved by the NCLT, no other court or tribunal could continue an adjudicatory process. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in limiting the addition to commission income without proper investigation. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions based on the Supreme Court ruling. However, the issue of depreciation on rolling mills was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to provide a complete copy of the assessment order to both the assessee and the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to decide the appeal afresh on merits after receiving the complete order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was allowed normal depreciation and the lease rental income was accepted as business income, there was no justification for reducing the additional depreciation. The assessee was entitled to the full 20% additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the cash book entries were a result of misappropriation by the accountant, and the loans were actually repaid through banking channels. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 269T, and the penalty under Section 271E was not leviable.
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal due to the assessee's failure to provide any documentation or respond to the appellate proceedings. The findings of the CIT(Appeals) were concurred with.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding TDS credit was not clear. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS credit details submitted by the assessee and determine the correct refund.
The Tribunal held that the addition of share application money was unsustainable as the assessee had provided all necessary documents, and the AO/CIT(A) failed to conduct further inquiries. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance can be made when no exempt income is earned, as the explanation to Section 14A is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the technical error was rectifiable and the delay in filing the fresh application should be condoned. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the application on merits, irrespective of the delay.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in limiting the addition to commission income without proper investigation. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in limiting the addition to commission income without proper investigation. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal due to the assessee's failure to provide any documentation or respond to the appellate proceedings. The findings of the CIT(Appeals) were concurred with.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in limiting the addition to commission income without proper investigation. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee already had a subsisting valid registration under Section 12A, the second application was not maintainable and was infructuous. Therefore, the dismissal of the second application by the CIT(Exemption) would not affect the existing registration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel withdrew all grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Pr. CIT was invalid as the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries and taken a plausible view. The Tribunal also noted that a second revision on the same issue is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that interest on delayed deposit of ESI & PF is not admissible. However, interest expenditure on VAT, Entry Tax, Service Tax, and SB ST was allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the fresh application, treating it as a continuation of the original timely application. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the application on merits, irrespective of the delay, considering the technical nature of the mistake.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had adequately established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and premium. The CIT(A) had considered the financial position and sources of funds of the investor companies, which were sister concerns.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence regarding the sale of a capital asset. Both issues related to transfer pricing adjustments for raw material/finished goods and capital assets were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO had merely relied on the information received without applying his own mind and recording independent objective satisfaction. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed as being bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO had merely relied on the information received without applying his own mind and recording independent objective satisfaction. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed as being bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding no substance in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and financials of the lenders, and the non-appearance of creditors did not automatically invalidate the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding no substance in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and financials of the lenders, and the non-appearance of creditors did not automatically invalidate the transactions.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, noting that a related issue had already been restored to the AO. Therefore, the current issue was also set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in invoking Section 263. It noted that the Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Educational Society, which treated rental income as outside the exemption, was to operate prospectively. Therefore, prior to that judgment, the AO was justified in accepting the assessee's claim based on existing High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without mentioning the mandatory DIN, as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, is invalid and non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee was admitted and allowed.