Loading ITAT cases…
230 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee may not have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition of an estimated profit element from disputed purchases does not automatically imply the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding 1,50,000 shares required further verification by the AO, considering additional evidence and potential double taxation. The High Court affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deferred consideration not being taxable until received or accrued.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision for a prior assessment year, remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB(10) in light of specific directions provided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made on an estimated basis without establishing concealment or mala fide intention. The assessee's conduct was not contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of ICDs could be allowed as a business loss. It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mill Ltd., which allowed a similar claim under similar circumstances.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because a claim is unproved, especially when the revenue has not disproved it with clinching evidence. The sustained disallowance was based on estimation, not concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 3% of unverifiable purchases. It found the CIT(A)'s reasoning, based on low margins and sales to Shipping Corporation of India, to be sound, and noted the similarity to a previous Tribunal ruling.
Since the assessees opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and filed the necessary form, and the revenue had no objection, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
Since the assessees opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and filed the necessary form, and the revenue had no objection, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach and dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Tribunal found the assessee's grievance reasonable and stated that technicalities should not impede substantial justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on CBDT circulars enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's contention of not being provided a proper opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty would have no basis. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the appeal electronically was a procedural lapse and not a bar to substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal remitted the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, following previous directions. For the transfer pricing adjustment on share application money, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, agreeing that it should not be treated as a loan transaction.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that if the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 is quashed, the consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 would not survive.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the reopening invalid. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on an audit objection and lacked the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind, and also that the assessee's objections to the reopening were not disposed of by a speaking order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the addition is based on estimation and not on findings of concealment or dishonest conduct. The tax effect was also below the CBDT's prescribed limit.
The Tribunal noted that two Form 35 were filed, one verified by the company and another by an individual, and the latter might have escaped the CIT(A)'s attention. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for examination and to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to refer international transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT was justified in initiating revision proceedings on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the provision for foreseeable losses was a fair, proper, and justified claim. Therefore, it could not be considered an unascertained liability for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the borrowed funds were utilized for business purposes and the lender was not a related party under Section 40A(2). Therefore, the interest expenditure was deductible. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a disallowance that was later deleted by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the rebates/discounts given to dealers were not in the nature of commission as there was no principal-agent relationship. The transactions were principal-to-principal sales. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed, directing relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15.74% of the non-genuine purchases, agreeing that the estimation of profit by the AO was on the higher side.
The Tribunal held that the lease rent payment was part of the acquisition cost of a fixed asset and should be capitalized, allowing depreciation. For the deferred revenue expenditure, it was held that it should be allowed only as per Section 35D, not in full.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient details regarding notices sent to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that restricting the addition to 30% of the bogus purchase amount was justified. This was because the assessee had provided documentary evidence and the AO had not conducted further inquiries.