Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction as no incriminating material with bearing on the assessee's total income was found during the search. Furthermore, the addition was based on statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider dividend-yielding investments for calculating average investment value. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for recomputation of disallowance under Section 14A, considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 82,50,000, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal also dismissed the legal grounds related to reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which clarified the due dates for such deposits, were prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order on merits and without providing adequate opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of heavy reliance on a consultant and inadvertent mistakes to be reasonable, considering his age and the nature of the errors. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without tangible material, constituting a 'mere change of opinion'. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were set aside as being in violation of Section 147.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for excess interest should be restricted to the amount claimed as expenditure in the current year. For the guarantee fees, the Tribunal ruled that it was a legitimate business expenditure, even if converted into equity, and therefore allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the interest expense was a periodic cost related to stock-in-trade and allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the percentage of completion method, distinguishing it from cases following the completed contract method.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated income, especially when the addition is ad-hoc and not based on furnishing inaccurate particulars. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenses were allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) because the assessee established a nexus between the borrowed funds and the loans advanced to earn interest income. The Tribunal also noted the principle of consistency from prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had ruled against depreciation on toll roads themselves when not owned by the assessee. However, the specific issue of depreciation on the intangible right to collect toll was not adjudicated in those High Court decisions.
The Tribunal agreed with both parties to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of the total loan amount. The AO was directed to consider the factual aspects and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the employer's contribution to ESIC, paid before the return filing due date, is allowable as a deduction. The employee's contribution, though paid after the ESIC due date but before the return filing due date, is also allowable as a deduction for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found no concealment of income as the error was rectified and the amount was shown in the books of account.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had substantiated its claim that sales to the holding company were at ex-factory rates, excluding transportation costs. The AO's estimation of suppressed sales was found to be arbitrary and without scientific basis.
The Tribunal held that the Industrial Promotional Subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. Consequently, it was not chargeable to tax as business income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs is not justified when payments are made before the return filing due date, especially when supported by jurisdictional High Court judgments. The tax auditor's report does not bind the assessee and the 'due date' under Section 36(1)(va) is not decisive in this context.
The Tribunal held that since the commission income was duly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and P&L account, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench decision for this.
The Tribunal held that the discounts allowed to prepaid distributors on the sale of starter kits and recharge vouchers were not in the nature of commission. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding securities being stock-in-trade and not incurring expenditure were not realistic, especially as dividend income was claimed as exempt. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the AO's calculation and the balance sheet figures.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, noted that when sales are not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. However, it also acknowledged that purchases from the grey market warrant some disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 was vitiated because the information used was obtained after the AO's order, and the CIT effectively sought to reopen the assessment, which is not permissible under Section 263. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT failed to demonstrate how the revenue was prejudiced if the business was indeed not genuine but income was still returned.
The Tribunal held that payments made after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the income tax return are deductible. The disallowance made under section 143(1) was considered vitiated in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts that favored the assessee in cases of conflicting views.
The Tribunal held that the short-term capital loss was genuinely claimed and quantified in earlier assessment years and was also disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the rectification order disallowing the set-off was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on certain issues, including the estimation of profit at 3% and dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the validity of the assessment order being passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 instead of Section 144. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's ground regarding fixed assets as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the legislative amendments regarding the due date for deposit of employee contributions are prospective. Since the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issues of cost of stores and TDS on brokerage, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income was earned. For transfer pricing, it was held that corporate guarantees constitute international transactions, but the commission rate was restricted to 0.5% based on previous rulings. Interest on delayed receivables from AEs was not to be charged, aligning with the assessee's practice for non-AEs.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's balance sheets, ITRs, and prior assessment orders which reflected the stock of jewellery. The jewellery found in the locker was considered stock in trade.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business and past trends but noted the inability to explain cash deposits. It reduced the estimated profit to 4% of turnover for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Explanation to Section 73 of the Act is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. It agreed with the lower authorities that the appellant's principal business was not banking.
The Tribunal held that there were insufficient evidences on record to determine the nature and character of the payment received by the assessee from Rabobank. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's direction regarding the cost of stores was not sustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and complied with accounting standards. However, the Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's direction for verification of the set-off of brought forward business losses against short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which clarified the due dates for such deposits, were prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issues raised were beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's action effectively negated the system of limited scrutiny.