Loading ITAT cases…
300 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the mistake in the return of income occurred due to bona fide professional advice and the assessee had made a genuine investment in a new flat. The explanation furnished by the assessee was accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
Since the assessee is not contesting the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 has been issued, the appeals filed by the Revenue are no longer necessary to be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment order, which formed the basis for the Section 154 rectification, was quashed by the CIT(A), the rectification order could not survive independently. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 through the rectification order was vacated.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the facts for the current assessment year were identical to the previous year. The CIT(A) had correctly followed the precedent set by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271C was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the fact of purchase of machinery, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on it. The CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to re-compute depreciation after reducing the inflated cost.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amount received for the sale of FSI is a capital receipt and should be excluded from book profits under Section 115JB. However, the contention that Section 115JB is not applicable when there is a loss under normal provisions was rejected.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal held that tax withholding liability under Section 195 is vicarious and depends on the primary tax liability of the recipient. Since the recipient's tax liability was negated by a co-ordinate bench, the withholding demands were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire amount. The addition of cash purchases was also sustained.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the assessment order was illegal and without jurisdiction due to the lack of a specific order empowering the Additional Commissioner under Section 120(4)(b). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, stating that penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely on an estimation basis. This is a well-settled legal principle supported by various High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit in the CBDT circular. The exception for additions based on external agency information did not apply to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration if the matter is not resolved.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when additions are made merely on estimations, as there is no definite finding of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions, especially when there is no concrete evidence of concealment. Following the principle of preferring the view favorable to the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the admission of additional evidence and the partial allowance of the loss claim after verification through a remand report.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the grounds raised were covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT's order in ITA No. 4474/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12, dated 07.09.2018, and that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had not reversed that order. The Tribunal's reasoning, as reflected in paragraph 15 of the judgment (though this specific paragraph appears to be from a different part of the judgment, it outlines the principle applied), was that a bare perusal of the MIDC Act and the absence of any instrument of transfer evidencing vesting of ownership in favour of the assessee corporation militated against the lower authorities' observations that ownership had transferred. The Tribunal found no material or documentary evidence from the Revenue to irrefutably dislodge the assessee's claim that it was not the owner or 'deemed owner' of the land for the purpose of assessing the income arising therefrom. Therefore, the Revenue's claim failed and was rejected. The specific grounds of appeal (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 14) were allowed in terms of these observations. The Tribunal found that the judgment of the ITAT for A.Y. 2011-12 would equally apply to the facts of the subject years, as there was no change in the facts considered.
The Tribunal held that a fresh claim can be made before appellate authorities and that interest earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) as co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide any material change in facts to justify deviating from the consistently accepted RPM in previous and subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the assessee's RPM was upheld based on the principle of consistency. The DRP's deletion of the adjustment was also found to be in order.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that deemed rent on unsold stock is leviable. However, the AO's method of estimating the annual value at 8.5% of the cost was not sustainable, and the municipal ratable value should be considered.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the legal issue of reassessment validity, considering the new evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit the required documents and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. This was based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department issuing the relevant form.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting the disallowance of prior period expenses. This decision was based on previous Tribunal rulings and a jurisdictional High Court judgment on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the profit element embedded in bogus purchases is liable to be added to the income, not the entire amount. They estimated the profit ratio at 12.5% of the bogus purchase.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for bogus purchases. It noted that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified.
The Tribunal held that in cases of search action, Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act prevails over Section 147. Since no notice under Section 153C was issued and assessment wasn't done under Section 153A/153C, the assessment under Section 147 is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that in cases of search action, Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act prevails over Section 147. Since no notice under Section 153C was issued and assessment wasn't done under Section 153A/153C, the assessment under Section 147 is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the penalty. This was because the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the ITAT in a separate quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form-3 from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F was rejected without proper examination. The ITAT has the power to consider claims made outside a revised return, and in the interest of justice, the issue should be re-examined.