Loading ITAT cases…
138 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal restored the issue of labour charges disallowance to the AO for fresh verification, considering the documentary evidence and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. For the ad-hoc disallowance on other expenses, the Tribunal restricted it to 10% of the total expenses.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in light of the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment Private Limited, considering only investments yielding exempt income. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all relevant details regarding the nature of services during penalty proceedings, which were not appreciated by the lower authorities. Mere disallowance of expenditure does not automatically lead to penalty.
The Tribunal held that the income from the Amenities Agreement should be taxed under 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Income from House Property'. It also held that municipal taxes paid in respect of the property are not deductible from 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal held that the income from the Amenities Agreement should be taxed under 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Income from House Property'. It also held that municipal taxes paid in respect of the property are not deductible from 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee, as per the rulings of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the legal ground and held that the CIT(A) had erred in not adjudicating this specific ground. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for manual filing to be plausible, considering it was filed under a bona fide belief. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same group of entry providers. The Tribunal agreed that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and admitted the appeals. It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals afresh on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and allowing them to file the appeals online within a specified time.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and admitted the appeals. It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals afresh on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and allowing them to file the appeals online within a specified time.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A, which allows exemption for preceding assessment years if registration is granted and assessment proceedings are pending, applies even if the assessment proceedings are pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled the criteria.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment was made arbitrarily and without following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Act. Following its own previous decisions in similar cases for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred to maintain the assessee's corporate status and statutory requirements. Since the expenses were disclosed and there was a debate regarding their allowability, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had considered the documentary evidence provided by the assessee and applied judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not recorded proper satisfaction for rejecting the assessee's disallowance method. Following earlier years' decisions, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the disallowance made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that merely estimating gross profit does not automatically lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be disallowed, citing judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had already quashed the Section 263 revision order, which was the basis for the subsequent assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, is curative and retrospective. Since the assessee filed the return of income before the due date, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the DRP failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the absence of revenue-based international transactions and the impropriety of the TPO's adjustment. This non-consideration violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that a mere change in the head of income, where the income is disclosed and the claim is bona fide, does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The mere receipt of share premium without any indication of overvaluation or lack of substantiation was insufficient for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. These decisions had allowed exemption under Section 11, finding the activities to be in furtherance of charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the revision order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to attend the hearing, which was beyond their control. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee chose not to press the issue due to the small tax effect.
The Tribunal held that a mere change in the head of income does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). It was held that the assessee incurs some expenditure in relation to earning exempt income, even if not directly identifiable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee chose not to press the issue due to the small tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish suppression of sales with material evidence, relying instead on an arithmetical difference. The Tribunal found that differences in sale consideration could arise due to factors like floor location, payment schedules, and amenities, which were not adequately disproven by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) is void and illegal because the Assessing Officer of the searched person did not record satisfaction as required by law. This jurisdictional defect renders the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on issuing FCCNs is allowable as it is in the nature of a loan. It also held that adjustments to book profit under section 115JB cannot be made in the final assessment order if not considered in the draft assessment order, and specifically disallowed adjustments for wealth tax provision and section 14A disallowance as they were not permitted under Explanation 1 to section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that since the contract was cancelled and the advance refunded, no income accrued to the assessee. Therefore, the TDS credit should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added to income, not the entire amount. The AO was directed to estimate the profit at 12.5%.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty, registration charges, and society maintenance charges are deductible while calculating the annual letting value of the property. It also directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000/- under section 57(iii), finding that the expenses were incurred in connection with the business of lending money.