Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal noted that the tax dispute for the assessment year under consideration was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was beyond jurisdiction. It reasoned that if information is received by the revenue subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, the assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that payments made for employee's contribution before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction, following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act 2021 was considered prospective.
The Tribunal heard the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The specific decision of the Tribunal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circulars have enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. As the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) found that the AO had relied solely on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain without bringing on record any appellant-specific evidence to prove the loans were bogus or that commission was paid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had considered the seized material and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Pr. CIT could not impose a different view when the AO had taken a possible view, and there was no new material to substantiate the revision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal regarding the labour charges, stating that the disallowance was made solely because some bills were in the husband's name, and the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the books of account and making additions without pointing out specific defects. The assessee's admission during the search was a general statement and not supported by documentary evidence, and the GP rate could fluctuate yearly.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's initiation of revision proceedings under section 263 was not proper. It agreed with the assessee that the Assessing Officer had already made additions for the unaccounted receipts in an earlier assessment year, and taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's initiation of revision proceedings under section 263 was not proper. It agreed with the assessee that the Assessing Officer had already made additions for the unaccounted receipts in an earlier assessment year, and taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation.
The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had already received relief in compliance with the CIT's order. Therefore, the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision in Goetze India Ltd. does not restrict the ITAT's power to admit grounds not filed via a revised return. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) mentioned the donee's approval had expired, which is a factual matter requiring verification.
The Tribunal held that while the AO had verified some issues, he had not obtained specific details regarding the substantial addition to capital and the purchase of office premises, which were part of the assets and liabilities selected for scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue on these specific points.
The Tribunal held that the advance paid for booking a flat between two companies constituted business transactions. Since there was no evidence that the assessee directly or indirectly enjoyed the benefit of these transactions, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked.
The Tribunal held that the arbitration award was not solely for retirement but for relinquishment of all rights and claims against the firm and its partners. The amount was thus taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on a retracted statement and an unacted-upon promotion letter was not justifiable. The assessee's evidence of actual salary received was not considered.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit, being from earlier withdrawals for property negotiation, was unrebutted by the revenue. The addition was based solely on surmise and conjecture and was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the mother was allowed the entire deduction under Section 54F in her assessment, and the assessee had also provided all relevant material to the AO, the addition made in the assessee's hands was not justified. The CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on a retracted statement and an unacted-upon promotion letter was not justifiable. The assessee's evidence of actual salary received was not considered.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on transfer pricing adjustments, corporate guarantee commission, and disallowance under Section 14A, while also agreeing with the deletion of additions under Section 41(1) for unproved liabilities.
The Tribunal held that society maintenance charges are allowable as a deduction while computing the annual value of a property under Section 23. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that product registration expenses are revenue in nature, following precedents from various High Courts and the ITAT. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC, made before the due date of filing the return of income, should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court judgments and deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unsustainable. The AO's view was a possible one, supported by precedent, and therefore the assessment order could not be considered erroneous. Additionally, the PCIT introduced a new issue without providing an opportunity for hearing to the assessee.
The Third Member decided the issue in favor of the assessee, concurring with the Judicial Member. The majority view upheld the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit from the date of the original assessment order. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered all relevant facts and taken a possible view before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. It was also directed that credit for tax deducted at source be allowed after verification and that interest under Sections 234B and 234C be recomputed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers was not justified. It also directed the AO to grant depreciation and allow deductions to avoid double disallowance, and to verify TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, any disturbance by the AO under section 153A is permissible only if incriminating material is found during search. Since no such material was found, the disallowance was quashed.
The Tribunal held that maintenance charges paid to a housing society are deductible, even while determining the annual letting value of the property. This is because such charges are inextricably linked with the letting out of the property.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the outcome would have no tax consequences. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the contentions regarding transport expenses and that the assessee did not own vehicles, making transport expenditure a business necessity. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to rebut the comparables chosen by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry and verified the nature of the perpetual bonds as borrowed funds for business use. The Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 was deemed unjustified as it overlooked the detailed submissions and evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment for the year had attained finality before the search and no incriminating material was found, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of proportionate interest on loans not exclusively used for business, finding that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence of exclusive business use. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of the loan as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) due to common shareholding and substantial interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for the benefits of the Income Declaration Scheme as the declaration was made after the issuance of notice under Section 148 and during the pendency of proceedings under Section 147. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO was sustained.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC, proceedings against a corporate debtor cannot continue once the matter is under the purview of a resolution professional. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's plea of lack of notice service was contradictory and based on surmises. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's cogent plea of suffering from cancer.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void ab initio. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record proper satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the payments made were compensation for alternative accommodation and not rent as defined under Section 194-I. Therefore, Section 194-IA was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied its mind to the issue of rent from AIILSG, considering the long-standing practice and the conditional grant of land. The revision was deemed erroneous as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour contractor expenses was made without concrete evidence and confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The ad-hoc disallowance of credit card expenses was also directed to be allowed. The addition on account of sale of loom and commission was also deleted, as the findings from another group entity could not be applied.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal on merits without considering the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme declaration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour contractor expenses was made without concrete evidence and confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The ad-hoc disallowance of credit card expenses was also directed to be allowed. The addition on account of sale of loom and commission was also deleted, as the findings from another group entity could not be applied.