Loading ITAT cases…
605 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, on which the penalty was levied, were deleted by the ITAT itself in earlier proceedings, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are unsustainable and do not survive. Therefore, the cancellation of penalty by the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021, which made such late deposits disallowable, is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 143(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that grounds related to the validity of reassessment notices were not pressed. For the disallowance of business expenditure, the Tribunal applied its previous order which set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act is applicable for computing depreciation on assets acquired under a slump sale, even without invoking Section 170. The balancing figure between the slump sale value and the WDV of assets taken over qualifies as goodwill and is eligible for depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the penalty. This was because the primary addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the ITAT in a prior appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on the information received from the Investigation Wing. However, on merits, following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was deleted as the assessee had discharged its initial onus and the lender's statement was retracted.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to section 36(1)(va) is prospective. Since the payment was made before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance made under section 143(1) is deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Departmental Representative had no objections to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were undisputed and supported by quantitative records and audited accounts, the entire purchase amount could not be added. The addition should be restricted to the extent of gross profit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the business promotion expenses and explained the cash deposits with supporting documentation. The AO's disallowance was considered ad-hoc and based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective. Since the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of determining profit by converting foreign currency transactions using the TT Buying rate as per Rule 115 is just and proper. The addition made by the AO based on stock valuation difference was deleted as it leads to absurd results when Rule 115 is applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. The issue of deduction under Section 80IB(9) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the interest-free advances given to M/s. Sarjak and M/s. N. G. Group were out of the assessee's own interest-free funds. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted under Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the penalty levied by the AO. The assessee's failure to respond to notices and provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance was the basis for the decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and brokerage paid on investments. It set aside issues related to Section 35D to the AO for further examination and disposed of other grounds with similar directions as in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have settled the amount with M/s. S.P. Engineering Products in a subsequent year and provided evidence. The Tribunal decided to verify this claim by remitting the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange loss on loans extended to its foreign subsidiary for business expediency is allowable as a deduction. It relied on the principle of consistency, noting that similar gains were taxed in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was vague and defective because it did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, vitiating the penalty. The penalty was deleted based on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenditure to the AO for recalculation, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present details of merged entities and advance tax liability. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It directed the AO to grant depreciation on the block of building, treat rental income from RP House as income from house property, and allowed an additional ground of appeal regarding sales tax deferral loan for limited purpose to the AO.
The Tribunal held that assessments made in the names of dissolved firms are bad in law, as the firms no longer exist. It followed High Court and ITAT rulings that such assessments are void.
The Tribunal held that assessments made in the names of dissolved firms are bad in law, as the firms no longer exist. It followed High Court and ITAT rulings that such assessments are void.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its explanation and evidence regarding the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA, similar to Section 50C, has retrospective applicability. Therefore, the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty value was within the tolerance band, and no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, made before the due date of filing the return of income, was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). This was based on the principle that the amendment to Section 43B was prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA, similar to Section 50C, has retrospective applicability. Therefore, the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty value was within the tolerance band, and no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. Following that precedent, the Tribunal found that the Pr.CIT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the completed assessment proceedings. Therefore, the revision order passed under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivadh se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were legally sustainable and that the assessee's claims of fraudulent bank account opening were not contemporaneous and lacked evidentiary value. The facts were found to be similar to earlier assessment years where the ITAT had made adverse findings.
The Tribunal held that processing fees paid for securing loans, which are part of the assessee's business of lending, are allowable expenses. However, other professional fees for arranging loans were not allowed due to lack of supporting evidence.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the client had paid the taxes under the VSVS scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions for the assessee, restricted the disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenses to 10% of the amount debited to the Profit & Loss account. The issue regarding the transfer pricing adjustment was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests a modification.
The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of brokerage services provided to associated enterprises. It found that the services provided to non-associated enterprises involved a broader range of activities, making direct comparison via CUP difficult without significant adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot challenge the valuation method adopted by the assessee at the assessment stage, especially when an approved method like DCF was used and the valuation was done by a registered valuer. The Tribunal followed a precedent stating that evaluating the accuracy of valuation at the assessment stage is improper.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable because the insolvency proceedings had been initiated, and a moratorium was in place. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the right to restore them after the insolvency process.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by dismissing the additional evidence without proper consideration. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence needed to be addressed by the AO for fair adjudication.