Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 7 of 8
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for immunity from disallowance under the second proviso to Section 201 of the Act, as the payees (NBFCs) had already paid taxes on the interest income. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot legally assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Tribunal also found that the AO had made adequate inquiries and taken a possible view on the discontinued project expenses, making the revision unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the deposit in the Capital Gains Scheme account must be made on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) for exemption under Section 54(2). The assessee also failed to meet the conditions of Section 54(1) as the amount was utilized for purchasing a new asset beyond the prescribed two-year period.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including contract notes and demat statements, to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal found that the revenue had failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and accepted the revised return based on judicial precedents. The PCIT's order was found to be beyond jurisdiction as the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the application for additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries during the assessment proceedings and that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that there was a temporary lull in the assessee's business, as evidenced by business receipts in earlier and subsequent years. Therefore, the basic expenditures incurred to retain business infrastructure were allowable.
The Tribunal held that state taxes paid overseas, if not eligible for relief under Section 90 or 91, would not be covered under Section 40(a)(ii). It also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding advertisement expenses, finding no basis for the Assessing Officer's disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's reasons for rejecting the books of accounts were factually incorrect and unsubstantiated. The assessee's books had been accepted in previous and subsequent years and by APA authorities.
The Tribunal held that both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are not maintainable. This is due to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the assessee and the declaration of a moratorium, prohibiting further proceedings.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea that the AO's addition should be based on the lower figure mentioned in the show-cause notice. The CIT(A) had correctly upheld the AO's assessment based on the detailed party-wise bogus purchase amount of Rs. 1,49,79,715.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tip Top Typography, which mandates consideration of rent control legislation for fixing standard rent, was not considered in the prior assessment year's order. Therefore, the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the issue of interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. For rent payments, the Tribunal directed deletion of disallowance on amounts below the TDS threshold. The ad hoc disallowance on fuel and freight expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the loan from Jayashree Finvest was genuine, supported by documentation, SEBI intimation, and repayment. For Consistent Vyapaar, the Tribunal noted similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in a prior year. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the loan from Jayashree Finvest was genuine, supported by documentation, SEBI intimation, and repayment. For Consistent Vyapaar, the Tribunal noted similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in a prior year. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on incorrect facts and without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The AO also failed to dispose of the assessee's objections before proceeding with the assessment.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation of profit is made, following previous decisions where estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation of profit is made, as it does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interim bonus to the AO for de novo examination. Regarding dividend income, the Tribunal noted it was a recurring issue decided in favour of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on Section 80G, holding that while Section 44 allows computation as per the First Schedule, it does not permit double deduction of donations.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits was inextricably linked to the funding and commissioning of the power project, as per loan agreement covenants. Therefore, it should not be taxed as 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) is allowable. It distinguished the Special Bench decision relied upon by the lower authorities, noting that the assessee followed the percentage of completion method, unlike the project completion method in the cited case.
The Tribunal held that technicalities should not override substantial justice and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice are followed and the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for suppressed profits on unverifiable purchases to 12.5%, considering it a reasonable estimate. The Revenue's appeal was found to have no merit.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interim bonus to the AO for de novo examination. Regarding dividend income, the Tribunal noted it was a recurring issue decided in favour of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on Section 80G, holding that while Section 44 allows computation as per the First Schedule, it does not permit double deduction of donations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following High Court precedents. It ruled that service tax should be excluded when determining presumptive profit under Section 44BB for services related to mineral oil extraction.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that income is taxable in the hands of the members of the JV and not in the hands of the JV itself, based on various judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind to the facts and completed the assessment. The PCIT's revision was based on a re-examination of evidence which was not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of section 153A as the assessment for the year had become final before the search. No incriminating material was found during the search to support the additions.
The Tribunal held that service tax should be excluded from the amount paid or payable for determining presumptive profit under Section 44BB. This decision was based on multiple High Court rulings on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was a debatable issue and not rectifiable under Section 154. It also found that the AO had acted arbitrarily by not giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order concerning book profits and interest, leading to a remand for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was not justified, considering the assessee is an NRI and provided reasonable explanations. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after the disposal of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bonus needs verification by the AO, as the tax audit report might contain an inadvertent error. The issue of TDS on technical fees was also restored to the AO for de-novo examination.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the addition of share premium as income under Section 68 was justified due to the assessee's failure to offer any explanation regarding the nature and source of the credits. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation throughout the proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following multiple High Court rulings that service tax should be excluded from the computation of presumptive profit under Section 44BB. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from these established precedents.
The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69A was not based on any incriminating material found during the search and the basis for the addition was deleted in another case. Similarly, the disallowance of set-off of long-term capital loss was not based on incriminating material found during the search and was already under challenge in original proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that service tax should be excluded from the computation of presumptive profit under Section 44BB. This decision followed established High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that service tax should be excluded from the amount for determining presumptive profit under Section 44BB. This decision followed established High Court rulings on the matter.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271B as the assessee failed to provide any reasons for not getting their accounts audited despite multiple opportunities. The assessee did not dispute the turnover or the requirement for an audit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic, non-speaking, and non-reasoned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that a 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. A 12.5% disallowance was considered a fair estimate of the profit element embedded in such transactions.
The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, following a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation as it was passed after the expiry of two years from the financial year in which the TDS statements were filed. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision and decisions of the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of State taxes paid overseas was decided by a Coordinate Bench following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal found that the State taxes paid overseas were not eligible for relief under Section 90 or 91 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based has been deleted, the penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA is to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.