Loading ITAT cases…
517 orders · Page 6 of 11
The Tribunal found that the revision order was passed within the extended time limit due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it noted that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case before the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that since the addition under Section 68 was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the rectification order under Section 154 became redundant. Furthermore, CBDT circular clarified that the amendment to Section 115BBE would not affect set-off of losses prior to AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer mechanically invoked Section 40A(2)(b) without proper verification of loans from relatives. However, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for agricultural income. Therefore, the addition on account of interest expenditure was deleted, but the addition on account of agricultural income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent re-assessment order based on it was invalid. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the re-assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263. It was found that the AO had sufficient information on record, and the assessee's explanation regarding the application of funds from earlier corpus donations was a plausible view that could not be disturbed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal also noted that amendments regarding corpus application were not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that referral fees paid to doctors violate the Indian Medical Council's code of conduct, as they can compromise the doctor-patient fiduciary relationship. Therefore, such payments are not tax-deductible business expenses.
The Tribunal held that Section 47(iv) and 47(v) apply only to transfers between an immediate holding company and its subsidiary, or vice versa. Since the transfer was between two fellow subsidiaries of the same holding company, these sections were not applicable.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The assessee had discharged the onus of proving the loan transactions with supporting evidence, which the AO failed to rebut.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated due to a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the relief granted on merits was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent that compensation for contract cancellation is revenue if it doesn't affect the business's trading structure or source of income. The compensation was deemed revenue as the assessee remained free to carry out its marketing support services for other products.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition solely on the basis of a retracted statement. The assessee had provided substantial corroborating evidence, including details of the loan, the Ponzi scheme, and legal proceedings against the borrowers, which the AO failed to disprove.
The Tribunal held that the explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act is applicable to companies and not individuals. Losses from derivative transactions on a recognized stock exchange are eligible for set-off against other business income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue along with the pending appeals for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for depreciation, directing them to allow the eligible claim as per law, irrespective of any errors in the uploaded return. The appeal against the Section 154 order was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for depreciation, directing them to allow the eligible claim as per law, irrespective of any errors in the uploaded return. The appeal against the Section 154 order was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed rental income on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade was not justified as such income should be treated as business income. The addition under section 69C for unexplained expenditure was also deleted as the assessee had explained the excess cash in its books.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided not to adjudicate on the eligibility for Section 80-IA for the current year, as the assessee was already eligible for exemption under Section 10B. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute profits considering the entire unit, including the captive power plant, for Section 10B exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element of 2% on unaccounted sales, as purchases were explained. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element of 2% on unaccounted sales, as purchases were explained. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element of 2% on unaccounted sales, as purchases were explained. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element (2%) on unaccounted sales, as purchases were explained. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the reopening of assessment, finding sufficient basis in the partner's admission.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add only the profit element of 2% on unaccounted sales, as purchases were explained. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unrecognized profit. It agreed that the assessee's consistent use of the project completion method, accepted by the revenue in other years, should be followed, and the addition would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including conducting examinations and promoting architectural education, qualify as educational and are for the advancement of a general public utility. Therefore, exemption under Section 11 is allowable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, employees' contribution to PF and ESI remitted before the due date of filing the income tax return is allowable as a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the date of sale of the fourth flat. Capital gains will be taxed upon the sale of the flat.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Departmental Representative that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14 and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the date of sale of the fourth flat. Capital gains will be taxed upon the sale of the flat.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions given the peculiar nature of the diamond trade, and any non-compliance was backed by reasonable cause, making Section 273B applicable.
The Tribunal held that since the source of the commission income was explained and TDS was deducted, it could not be considered unexplained income. Therefore, taxing it under Section 115BBE was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery, being old, ancestral, and gifted, should be considered explained, partly allowing relief. The cash found was also considered explained due to bank withdrawals and prior declaration.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the disallowance made by the CPC resulted in a double addition. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment under Section 143(1) was incorrect as it treated sale consideration/cost as capital gains instead of actual capital gains or losses. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the rectification application by deeming the issue debatable.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision which stated that a defective penalty notice, lacking clarity on the grounds for penalty, can vitiate the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263 as the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) had confined his examination to the specified issues. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided a reply which was not properly considered by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the AO was duty-bound to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of the properties when the stamp duty value was disputed by the purchaser, even without an explicit request from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the benchmarking services provided by PTAI did not make available any technical knowledge, experience, or skill, nor did they involve the development or transfer of a technical plan. Therefore, the payments did not constitute FIS under the DTAA.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons and the need for substantial justice. The addition made on account of unproved purchases was restricted to 8% of the purchase value, considering the profit margins in the trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 68 for opening balances of loans. Furthermore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 68 for opening balances of loans. Furthermore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 68 for opening balances of loans. Furthermore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the payment for the purchase and resale of 'off the shelf' software does not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. The assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.
The Tribunal held that the investment in HDFC bonds was duly reflected in the assessee's audited balance sheet and that the sources for the investment were proven. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial for adjudicating the transfer pricing issue. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for a fresh decision in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly added only the bogus LTCG, as the purchase price was paid from accounted income and there was no evidence of commission expenses. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly exercised revision jurisdiction.