Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessment years. Generalized external information alone does not constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessment years. Generalized external information alone does not constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and that the AO passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to conduct an enquiry into the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for not following the Supreme Court decision to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessment years. Generalized external information alone does not constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now filed the appeal in the prescribed electronic format, the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeal after granting an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in electronic filing.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessment years. Generalized external information alone does not constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal, following its own precedents and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for prior years, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found no infirmity in allowing the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order also failed to survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim was upheld.
The tribunal rectified specific textual errors in paragraphs 4 and 11 of its earlier order. These corrections clarify that the appeal was filed by the Revenue and that a specific comparable company (M/s. MPS Ltd.) was not accepted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee engaged in non-genuine transactions, failing to substantiate purchases and sales with evidence. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld as the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenditure, agreeing with the CIT(A) that it was for business purposes. However, for the Section 68 addition, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication as the assessee admitted to not furnishing complete details.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). Reopening the assessment in such a scenario is invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner does not have the power to impose conditions while granting registration under Section 80G, as such power is not conferred by the Act. Therefore, the conditions imposed in the impugned orders were struck down.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) granted some relief on sale value, the Tribunal further directed a reduction in profit and restricted the disallowance of construction expenses to 15% from 25%.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on an incorrect assumption of facts. The appeal was accordingly remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner does not have the power to impose conditions while granting registration under Section 80G, as such power is not conferred by the Act. Therefore, the conditions imposed were struck down.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner does not have the power to impose conditions while granting registration under Section 80G, as such power is not conferred by the Act. Therefore, the conditions imposed in the impugned orders were struck down.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) were applicable to the purchase of immovable property. It also noted that the cash component of the purchase consideration should be considered.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeal could not be continued in its present format. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner does not have the power to impose conditions while granting registration under Section 80G, as such power is not conferred by the Act. Therefore, the conditions imposed in the impugned orders were struck down.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to take necessary steps to rectify the defects and file a condonation petition for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal could not be admitted.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for subsequent assessment years were dismissed as not maintainable because the Liquidator was not properly impleaded. Following this precedent, the current appeal was also dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee acted bonafide based on ICAI guidance notes and prior year's accounting practices. The genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted, only its classification. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. For depreciation on vehicles, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision with verification of supporting details. The disallowance of yacht expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance under Section 143(1) is not permissible for debatable issues or claims not routed through the profit and loss account. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax. However, considering the assessee's readiness to pay the admitted tax, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal upon payment of such taxes.
The Tribunal restored the issue of taxability of Inland Haulage Charges to the AO for fresh adjudication, noting that the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court decisions were withdrawn by the revenue. Regarding the TDS credit, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification and grant of credit if due, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were doubtful, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element. They relied on judicial precedents to estimate profit at 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without properly dealing with the assessee's adjournment applications. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue as the AO had applied his mind and verified facts, even if not elaborately discussed in the assessment order. The PCIT's action was not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments (unabated), additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search relatable to that assessment year. As no such material was found for AY 2010-11, no additions or disallowances could be made.
The CIT(A) has powers co-terminus with the Assessing Officer and cannot simply restore an issue to the AO after admitting a fresh claim. The CIT(A) must pass a speaking order adjudicating the claim.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments (unabated), additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search relatable to that assessment year. As no such material was found for AY 2010-11, no additions or disallowances could be made.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was barred by limitation as the original assessment order was passed much earlier. Furthermore, the PCIT could not satisfy the twin conditions for invoking revision jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is indeed registered under section 12A of the Act, as evidenced by a certificate from the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was incorrect. The case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of income.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's method of estimating man-hours and cost per hour without following prescribed methods under Section 92C(1) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable. The addition made by the TPO was deleted, following previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT cannot initiate revision proceedings under Section 263 based solely on a proposal from the AO. The Pr.CIT must independently examine the records and find the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments (unabated), additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search relatable to that assessment year. As no such material was found for AY 2010-11, no additions or disallowances could be made.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments (unabated), additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search relatable to that assessment year. As no such material was found for AY 2010-11, no additions or disallowances could be made.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the low tax effect and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates no appeal filing if the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal remanded the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for de-novo determination, citing a similar issue in a preceding assessment year. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of repayment of loans.
The Tribunal found that some grounds raised by the assessee were not discussed by the CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings. The Tribunal restored one ground to the CIT(A) for adjudication and dismissed other grounds as lacking merit.
The Tribunal held that the dominant and prime object of the assessee trust was not to earn profit in relation to trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the exemption under sections 11 & 12 was not liable to be declined.
The Tribunal held that the dominant and prime object of the assessee trust was not to earn profit in relation to trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the exemption under sections 11 & 12 was not liable to be declined.
The Tribunal held that the dominant and prime object of the assessee trust was not to earn profit in relation to trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the exemption under sections 11 & 12 was not liable to be declined.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the impugned order levying the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, which introduced a non-obstante clause, is effective from 01.04.2022 and cannot be applied retrospectively.