Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 5 of 13
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were from the cash balance available in the books of account, which were not rejected by the Assessing Officer, the deposits could not be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal relied on case laws supporting the assessee's position.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in sustaining additions for both commission income and gross profit, as this would lead to double taxation. It also noted that the conversion of a protective addition to a substantive addition by the CIT(A) was invalid without proper notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly given effect to the ITAT's previous orders regarding disallowances under Section 14A and ESOP expenses. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after necessary verification.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly given effect to the ITAT's previous orders regarding disallowances under Section 14A and ESOP expenses. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after necessary verification.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly given effect to the ITAT's previous orders regarding disallowances under Section 14A and ESOP expenses. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after necessary verification.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D are for the computation of total income and cannot be included in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. Therefore, the rectification order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and payments made before filing the return are allowable under Section 43B. It also addressed issues related to disallowance of interest, Section 14A, and rental income.
The Tribunal held that completing an assessment in the name of a deceased person without impleading the legal heirs is legally untenable. The assessment framed in the hands of the deceased person was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to produce additional evidence before the CIT(A) regarding the termination of the agreement and subsequent events. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence and judicial precedents, and that Section 68 of the IT Act cannot be invoked on opening balances of unsecured loans.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to produce additional evidence before the CIT(A) regarding the termination of the agreement and subsequent events. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and payments made before filing the return are allowable under Section 43B. It also addressed issues related to disallowance of interest, Section 14A, and rental income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not valid regarding the levy of penalty. However, it found no infirmity in the PCIT's directions to the AO for assessing interest received from Tata Power. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as infructuous. It held that the appeal against the 143(1) intimation required adjudication as the foreign tax credit issue was not addressed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches. The amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act were considered prospective, applicable from AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation, treated as current year's depreciation under Section 32(2) after the Finance Act, 2001, can be set off against income under any head, including short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly given effect to the ITAT's previous orders regarding disallowances under Section 14A and ESOP expenses. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after necessary verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the primary reason for reopening, the disallowance of bogus purchases, was dropped. Furthermore, the AO failed to demonstrate the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts, as required for reopening beyond four years.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and payments made before filing the return are allowable under Section 43B. It also addressed issues related to disallowance of interest, Section 14A, and rental income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The assessee was found to have fulfilled all the conditions of a Primary Co-operative Bank.
The Tribunal held that the TPO and DRP were not justified in treating the value of the international transaction for IT support services as Nil. The Tribunal also noted that one ground of appeal was not pressed and was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the payee institution was approved at the time of donation, and subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's claim. Following previous judgments on identical facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bonafide and constituting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that rental income from letting out land without any building does not fall under the purview of 'Income from house property'. The lower authorities rightly treated it as 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order itself acknowledged the assessee's compliance with the notices by furnishing details. Since the AO was satisfied with the assessee's response and accepted the return, the penalty for non-compliance was not warranted.
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 CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after calling for necessary details from the assessee.
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 CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after calling for necessary details from the assessee.
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 CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after calling for necessary details from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB was admissible, following a previous decision on identical facts. The additions made on account of differential sale prices were deleted, as the difference was attributed to terrace access and not on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that if the issuance of share capital is accepted as genuine, the share premium received on those shares cannot be treated as unexplained credit. A composite receipt of share application money cannot be partly explained and partly unexplained.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders on most grounds. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to transfer pricing adjustments, overseas support services, remuneration to an employee, and disallowances under Section 14A.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in confirming the disallowance of provisions for costs without analyzing project terms. It also deleted additions for excess progress billings over accumulated costs, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bonafide and constituting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding software license fees, finding no change in facts or law to interfere. However, regarding promotional expenses paid to doctors, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) had not properly considered the nature of expenses and applicable laws, remanding the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied by the Stock Exchange for short margins is not a penalty for infraction of law and therefore, the proviso to Section 37(1) is not applicable. The penalty is a risk management measure and part of the usual course of business.
The Tribunal held that payments made to an advertising agency for advertisement content fall under Section 194C, not Section 194J. The agency's payments to artists are its responsibility, not the assessee's concern.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders on most grounds. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to transfer pricing adjustments, overseas support services, remuneration to an employee, and disallowances under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that while the parties were bogus, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus as the assessee's sales were accepted. Therefore, a 100% disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that while the parties were bogus, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus as the assessee's sales were accepted. Therefore, a 100% disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely based on the date of the order without considering the date of service and the assessee's claim of timely filing. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the delay and merits.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was bad in law because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the original return and Form 67 were filed before the due date, and the lower authorities erred in ignoring these filings. Therefore, the FTC claim should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the trading activities of the assessee, as it involves importing finished goods and selling them to third parties without value addition. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the consequent adjustment.