Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The assessee claimed the deposits were from business but lacked documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which constituted reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for allowing 95% of the expenses incurred in earning the commission income. However, for other heads of receipts, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off current year business losses and brought forward business losses against foreign dividend income. It also held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80G from the Gross Total Income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for allowing 95% of the expenses incurred in earning the commission income. However, for other heads of receipts, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the AO erred in rejecting the audited books of accounts without satisfying the conditions under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the estimation of income was also deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's reliance on its consultant and the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance justice. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, as Rule 128(9) does not prescribe disallowance for delayed filing. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim the foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal held that business losses incurred by the assessee are eligible to be set off against other business income in the same year. The CIT(A)'s order allowing such set-off was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts were followed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee was a regular investor, had held the shares for five years, and the scrip was not under SEBI's scanner. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the transaction was bogus or an accommodation entry.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of purchases was not fully established, the addition of the entire amount was unrealistic. Therefore, the addition was restricted to the extent of the gross profit shown by the assessee on the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal held that the credit card commission expenses were not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was retrospective. The Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a regular trader and the transaction was an intraday speculative one, not an accommodation entry for tax benefits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not re-agitate the issue of allowing 50% of expenses, as it was not pressed in the original appeal and a subsequent miscellaneous application was dismissed. The AO and CIT(A) correctly dismissed the rectification and subsequent appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the omission. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods for distribution, especially when the assessee does not undertake any value addition. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal noted violations of natural justice as the AO used material without confronting the assessee and found factual inaccuracies in the AO's computation of project completion. Consequently, the issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's status as a deemed university and the objects of UGC and AICTE regarding consultancy services warranted further examination. The issue of whether the proviso to Section 2(15) applies to the assessee's activities also needed to be considered.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on loans for stock-in-trade is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) when the project is stock-in-trade and not a fixed asset. The decision of the Special Bench in Wall Street Construction Ltd. was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that if the investment for the new house is made within the time limit specified under Section 139(4), the exemption under Section 54 cannot be denied merely for failing to deposit the capital gains in the capital gains account scheme before the due date under Section 139(1). The compliance with Section 54(1) is substantial, while Section 54(2) is procedural.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections, holding that section 153A assessments are valid even without incriminating material if proceedings were pending. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding non-genuine contractor payments for both years and the profit share reduction for AY 2016-17, finding the latter allowable from AY 2016-17 onwards. For AY 2017-18, the revenue's ground challenging the direction to examine a transaction in AY 2014-15 was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections, holding that section 153A assessments are valid even without incriminating material if proceedings were pending. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding non-genuine contractor payments for both years and the profit share reduction for AY 2016-17, finding the latter allowable from AY 2016-17 onwards. For AY 2017-18, the revenue's ground challenging the direction to examine a transaction in AY 2014-15 was also dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the purchases were supported by invoices, payments were made through banking channels, and the corresponding sales of the same quantity were accepted, the purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the enhancement by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal, following its previous order on a similar appeal by the assessee for the same assessment year, further reduced the disallowance rate from 10% to 5%. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not disproved the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the purchase and sale of shares, which were routed through banking and demat accounts. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the assessee was part of any syndicate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income, resulting in a net disallowance of Rs. 1,07,165/-. It also held that the interest income on income tax refunds was already offered to tax by the assessee, thus deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were not maintainable due to the assessee being under insolvency resolution process as per Section 14 of the IBC 2016. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were not maintainable due to the assessee being under insolvency resolution process as per Section 14 of IBC 2016. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile upon completion of the insolvency process.