Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 3 of 10
The ITAT held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 25% on alleged bogus purchases and to sustain a 10% disallowance on wages. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimations to be reasonable and based on facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reliance on case law was found to be not applicable due to differing facts.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the seized document clearly showed the assessee's payment of Rs. 1.46 crores, which was accounted for. The Tribunal also noted that other amounts mentioned in seized documents and emails did not conclusively pertain to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted on investments that did not yield any exempt income. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no reason to interfere with the restricted disallowance. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on the provision for pension liability, allowing the Revenue's appeal on that ground.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, condoned the delay in filing the electronic appeal, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction. Participation in assessment proceedings does not estop the assessee from raising this legal objection.
The Tribunal held that the AO's passivity in not conducting necessary inquiries regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the genuineness of the loan rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The matter required detailed examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction. Participation in assessment proceedings does not estop the assessee from raising this legal objection.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is responsible for prosecuting their appeal, if bonafide reasons for non-appearance are provided, the appellate authority should decide on merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that transactions in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of speculative transactions. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's working for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing confirmations, IT returns, and bank statements of the lenders. Since the facts were similar to the preceding assessment year where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue of scrap sale income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the Supreme Court's decision that such income cannot be included in total turnover. For other income items, the Tribunal also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, condoned any delay in electronic filing and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that transactions in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of speculative transactions. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's working for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal restored the issue of scrap sale income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the Supreme Court's decision that such income cannot be included in total turnover. For other income items, the Tribunal also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that transactions in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of speculative transactions. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's working for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that transactions in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of speculative transactions. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's working for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of manual filing. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal condoned any delay in electronic filing and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss is not to be included in the value of closing stock, following its consistent view. It also held that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09 and restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of dividend income. The issue of reimbursement of costs was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of scrap sale income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the Supreme Court's decision that such income cannot be included in total turnover. For other income items, the Tribunal also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of excess depreciation on goodwill. It found that the assessee adopted different net worth values for accounting goodwill and for capital gains computation, indicating an inflated goodwill value to claim higher depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal found that the assessee had participated in the reassessment proceedings without objection and that no prejudice was caused as no additions were made in the original reassessment. For the subsequent appeal, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the validity of the assessment and the merits of the addition.
The tribunal held that the principle of natural justice requires the assessee to be given another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11 could not be denied solely based on the erroneous status mentioned in the return, especially since the assessee is a registered trust with charitable objects. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee owned two residential properties (Lonawala and Kamothe) on the date of sale of land, making him ineligible for deduction under Section 54F. The claim for deduction was therefore rightly disallowed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the AO. The CIT(A) should have afforded sufficient time for the assessee to furnish details, especially since the AO passed a best judgment assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was passed without proper inquiry, as the information regarding the capital loss was presented under a misleading heading. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's sufficient reasons and a liberal interpretation of the law. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal held that only the profit element of bogus purchases should be taxed and allowed a 5% disallowance on expenditure.
The Tribunal held that since it had previously restricted the addition for bogus purchases to 2% in the assessee's cross-appeals for the same assessment years, the revenue's appeals challenging the CIT(A)'s order were not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the appeal being below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired rights in the property from the date of booking, which was more than 36 months before the sale. Therefore, the gains were long-term capital gains, and indexation benefits were admissible.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, following previous decisions in group cases. It was held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's actions prior to the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Triumph International Finance (India) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds utilized for stock-in-trade is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). The utilization of capital is irrelevant for this deduction, and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the agricultural income source, certain non-taxable or capital receipts should be excluded from the addition. A reasonable estimation of profit was also applied to other banking channel receipts.
The Tribunal found the order of the CIT(A) to be reasonable and justified, considering the facts of the case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasonable and justified, upholding the reduction of the GP rate. The Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision for estimating the GP rate on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that software expenses are revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. It also held that processing charges have a direct nexus with export activity and should not be reduced for Section 80HHC deduction.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on ad-hoc additions, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no contrary facts or law to deviate from this established position.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely on estimation. The acceptance of addition by the assessee does not automatically warrant penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions based on estimations. It also noted that the tax effect of the penalty was below the monetary limit for appeals, and exceptions for external agency information did not apply.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) as it was based on facts already on record. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification of the assessee's entitlement to deduct interest expenses related to advances made to four specific parties.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds utilized for stock-in-trade is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). The utilization of capital is irrelevant for this deduction, and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that not every addition automatically leads to a penalty. The disallowance of entire bogus purchases was incorrect; only the GP on such purchases should be disallowed. Therefore, it was not a fit case for penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed limit as per CBDT's low tax effect circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that an 8% GP on the alleged bogus purchases would be fair and reasonable, considering the assessee's business, the quantum of purchases, and the declared GP on undisputed purchases.
The tribunal held that the non-filing of an appeal in electronic form is a procedural defect that can be cured. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this technical ground.