Loading ITAT cases…
499 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely genuine, a complete deletion of the addition was not justified. It directed that the addition should be made at 15% of the gross profit, considering the consistent practice in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked application of mind in initiating penalty proceedings and issuing the notice without specifying the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). The penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked application of mind in initiating penalty proceedings and issuing the notice without specifying the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). The penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked application of mind in initiating penalty proceedings and issuing the notice without specifying the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). The penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding errors in the tax audit report and the non-consideration of their reply by the lower authorities warranted a fresh examination. The matter was set aside to the AO for de novo determination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's entries without making necessary inquiries. The CIT's order setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment of incentives and offer for taxation of the written-back amount. For exempt income, the disallowance was confirmed but restricted to the amount disallowed by the AO or a percentage of exempt income.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment of incentives and offer for taxation of the written-back amount. For exempt income, the disallowance was confirmed but restricted to the amount disallowed by the AO or a percentage of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the net worth should be considered as the cost of acquisition for calculating capital gains on the slump sale of the undertaking. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the additions were based on a difference of opinion and not concealment, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment of incentives and offer for taxation of the written-back amount. For exempt income, the disallowance was confirmed but restricted to the amount disallowed by the AO or a percentage of exempt income.
The tribunal heard the appeal ex-parte on merits after the respondent's representative presented their case. The assessee had denied purchasing the property in question, which was the basis for the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the net worth should be considered as the cost of acquisition for calculating capital gains on the slump sale of the undertaking. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the additions were based on a difference of opinion and not concealment, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal found no factual or legal errors in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had correctly upheld the reopening of the assessment and reasonably estimated the profit on impugned purchases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not exercise discretion judiciously in rejecting the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the additional evidence and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment of incentives and offer for taxation of the written-back amount. For exempt income, the disallowance was confirmed but restricted to the amount disallowed by the AO or a percentage of exempt income.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal, holding that if interest expenditure was not attributable to earning interest income, it might be for the ongoing project and thus needed capitalization. The matter was remitted to the AO for examination of the utilization of borrowed funds for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not examined the aspect of commercial expediency in advancing the money to sister concerns. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly considered the issue of taxing interest earned on deposits and allowing deduction for interest paid on borrowed funds. The CIT's direction to re-examine the issue was quashed as the AO had already examined it.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s 10% disallowance was made to plug possible leakages. However, considering the AO's admission of genuineness, the Tribunal reduced the ad hoc disallowance to 5%.
The Tribunal held that since most of the issues leading to the penalty were remanded back to the AO, the penalty order did not survive on those grounds. Regarding the disallowance of travel and conveyance expenses, the Tribunal found no evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and thus deleted the penalty on this ground as well.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to appellate orders are appealable, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts truly and fully. The First Appellate Authority also failed to adjudicate the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the charges paid to banks for credit card services are on a principal-to-principal basis and do not involve an element of agency. Therefore, these charges are not in the nature of commission under Section 194H.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly considered the facts regarding excise duty payments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a change of opinion without tangible material and relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision. The reassessment was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and decided the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without analyzing the facts. Since the assessee did not claim any expenditure in its profit and loss account for earning exempt income, and had voluntarily debited Rs. 4,89,272/- to the capital account, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the seized jewellery was fully explained considering the assessee's social status, background, culture, traditions, and customs. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted.
The Tribunal found that the factory wages were paid by cheque and the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted by the lower authorities. The assessee provided a valid reason for the increase in wages.
The Tribunal held that for the Assessment Year 2011-12, income from SEZ units must be excluded when computing book profit. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority, finding no legal infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the seized jewellery was fully explained considering the assessee's social status, background, culture, traditions, and customs. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal decided that depreciation on plant and machinery should be allowed as the necessary approval from DSIR was obtained. It also held that weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) should be allowed as the required approval was produced. The disallowance of prior period expenses was directed to be allowed in the year under appeal.
The Tribunal held that 'Mark to Market' losses on forward foreign exchange contracts, when used for hedging business transactions, are allowable as business expenditure. This is consistent with accounting standards and previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the amount received as advance for share capital, even if written back, is a capital receipt and not taxable as income under Section 41(1) or Section 28(iv). The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amount represented purely current account transactions of purchase and sale, supported by bills and vouchers. Therefore, it could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that penalty proportionate to the legal expenses allowed in the quantum appeal should be deleted. For the remaining expenses, which were remanded back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty was also set aside and remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to exclude the losses from the solar trial activity and non-operating transactions when computing the PLI. The AO's appeal was dismissed as a result.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was initiated for one reason (furnishing inaccurate particulars) and imposed for another (concealment of income). Following the Supreme Court's decision in T. Ashok Pai, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had provided specific reasons for disallowing the loss. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for proper adjudication after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly rejected additional evidence regarding purchases and that there was no condition in Section 80G disentitling a donor if a relative was studying in the institution. Therefore, the disallowance of donations and consequential interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from its Indian websites does not qualify as fees for technical services. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee's subsidiary companies in India do not constitute a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) to be bonafide. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars, but the penalty was imposed for concealment of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that adjusting mutual liabilities through journal entries, where the original receipt was by account payee cheque and there was no intention to evade tax, constitutes a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271E was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the sub-grant received was to meet the cost of the asset and thus should be deducted from the actual cost for depreciation purposes. Other issues regarding Section 80HHC deduction and prior period expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that if sales are not doubted and payments are made by cheque, only a profit element can be disallowed on bogus purchases. Following the consistent approach of the CIT(A) in earlier and subsequent years, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars but imposed for concealment, creating ambiguity. Following the Supreme Court's decision in T. Ashok Pai, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty due to this discrepancy.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars, but the penalty was imposed for concealment of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to treat rental income as business income. It found that the assessee had consistently offered such income as business income and failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the change in classification.