Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal allowed exemption under Section 54F for AY 2004-05 based on a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's father's case. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed as the issue of LTCG on land sale was also decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench. The ex-parte orders for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of material handling charges was an expansion of existing business, not a new one, and thus allowable. The addition on account of sundry creditors was deleted as the assessee reconciled payments against purchase bills. The disallowance for short TDS was also dismissed based on precedent.
The Tribunal held that 100% addition of alleged bogus purchases is not sustainable, and an addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the addition is based on estimation and no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the income from the property sale should be accounted for in the assessment year 2012-13 as the transaction was entered into and part payment received in that financial year. However, the issue of the allowability of the Rs. 65 lakhs paid to tenants was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a clearer finding.
The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the registered sale document and made an addition based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C, it cannot be presumed that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal allowed exemption under Section 54F for AY 2004-05 based on a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's father's case. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed as the issue of LTCG on land sale was also decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench. The ex-parte orders for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. The assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not adequately considered the evidence submitted by the assessee. To ensure justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the evidence.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of brought forward loss/unabsorbed depreciation, relying on Supreme Court judgments that permit entertaining legal issues at the appellate stage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the undisputed deduction.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as there was no escapement of income. The assessee had already offered the income as business income, and the Assessing Officer's attempt to reclassify it as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on identical facts for a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that 100% addition of alleged bogus purchases is not sustainable, and an addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the addition is based on estimation and no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that 100% addition of alleged bogus purchases is not sustainable, and an addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the addition is based on estimation and no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed exemption under Section 54F for AY 2004-05 based on a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's father's case. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed as the issue of LTCG on land sale was also decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench. The ex-parte orders for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on surmise and conjecture, as no deficiency was found in the details provided by the assessee. The revenue authorities cannot dictate the necessity of business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a printing company, could not demonstrate that the purchased materials were linked to any sales. Therefore, decisions based on undisputed sales were not applicable, and the addition was justified.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the exclusion of 'sales tax subsidy' from 'book profit' under Section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation, citing lack of incriminating material during search and previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was prohibited due to the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed for lack of permission from the NCLT and authorization from the Resolution Professional.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer's addition of 5% of the purchase value. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made only a 5% disallowance, which did not require interference.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of lenders, and the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO relied solely on a retracted statement, which was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to the markup allowed to the AE, as the proposed adjustment by the TPO exceeded the actual amount retained by the AE. This decision was based on previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce evidence of agricultural activity and expenses, and the Assessing Officer was to decide afresh whether the land was agricultural or not.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of additional evidence was uncalled for, especially as the Assessing Officer's assessment was based on non-response without clear details on opportunities given. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. Regarding foreign exchange loss, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision after verification of documents.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund, deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date, was incorrect. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which stated that such payments are allowable if made by the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the assessee's claim for computing the correct profit/loss from the project using the project completion method. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the interest income as 'income from other sources' as the assessee failed to establish a direct nexus with the business activity.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from the grey market, a 5% disallowance would meet the ends of justice, considering the assessee is in manufacturing and not trading.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on estimation, and the Tribunal concurred with the view that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium period prohibits the continuation of suits against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be proceeded with during this period.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'Consultancy' does not fall under the professions listed in Section 44AA, and therefore, the assessee is eligible for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD. The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim under Section 143(1)(a) without proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that when the assessee objected to the valuation, the revenue authorities should have referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for proper valuation as per the Act. The issue was remitted back to the AO for this purpose.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153A was made without any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to characterize the assessee as a trader, agreeing that its revenue was primarily from trading activities. Consequently, the matter was restored to the TPO/AO for fresh benchmarking considering the assessee as a trader.
The Tribunal held that the provision of corporate guarantee is an international transaction as per Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded to the TPO to benchmark this transaction properly, considering it as an international transaction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as the shift to electronic notices was new and the non-compliance was bonafide. The assessee subsequently participated in the assessment proceedings upon learning about them.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the availability of interest-free funds. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the revenue failed to prove the assessee's beneficial interest in the Blueridge Investment Corporation account. The Tribunal also found that funds in the joint account with the assessee's brother originated from income earned and savings in Abu Dhabi.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee succeeded in these appeals, the resulting tax liability would still exceed the capped amount of ₹2.58 crores as per the NCLT order. Therefore, adjudicating these appeals would be academic.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot change his stance in the subsequent assessment year without any change in facts, especially after accepting the asset as 'put to use' in the prior year. Consistency in approach is paramount.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided in the affidavit to be sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the carry forward of deficits, following Supreme Court precedent. It also allowed exemption under Section 11 for violations of Section 13(2)(h) but dismissed grounds related to Section 13(1)(d) as not pressed. Interest under Section 234A was directed to be computed after verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming additions on account of unproved agricultural income due to lack of evidence. For differences in capital accounts, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict additions based on the specific unoffered income identified for each assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 18 crores, agreeing that taxing the same amount in both the holding and subsidiary company would be double taxation. For the remaining Rs. 6.49 crores, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for further examination of the relevant documents.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal allowed the carry forward of deficits, following Supreme Court precedent. It also allowed exemption under Section 11 for violations of Section 13(2)(h) but dismissed grounds related to Section 13(1)(d) as not pressed. Interest under Section 234A was directed to be computed after verification.
The Tribunal allowed the carry forward of deficits, following Supreme Court precedent. It also allowed exemption under Section 11 for violations of Section 13(2)(h) but dismissed grounds related to Section 13(1)(d) as not pressed. Interest under Section 234A was directed to be computed after verification.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 6,00,000 declared during the survey was credited in the profit and loss account. The AO's opinion that it should have been declared over and above the profit did not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The addition itself was on a weak footing, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with copies of statements from third parties and denied the opportunity for cross-examination. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s factual observation that the assessee discharged its onus was incorrect as the assessee failed to produce the shareholder parties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.