Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant partial relief on repairs and maintenance, noting rational consideration of vouchers and cheque payments. The issue of interest payment was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order without providing adequate opportunity for hearing and in violation of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the transfer pricing addition related to interest on receivables as it was considered a secondary adjustment. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 43B, exercising co-terminus powers. The Tribunal clarified that appellate authorities can entertain claims not made before the Assessing Officer, referencing Supreme Court judgments that did not negate this power.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant partial relief on repairs and maintenance, noting rational consideration of vouchers and cheque payments. The issue of interest payment was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that a defect in the penalty notice, where inapplicable portions were not struck off, vitiates the penalty order, even if the assessment order indicated the specific charges. This is based on pronouncements by the Bombay High Court and the dismissal of a related SLP by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions with certain parties. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in changing the Most Appropriate Method and allowing expenses without proper verification and confrontation with the AO/TPO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's addition was based on suspicion and generalizations from the investigation wing, rather than specific inquiries into the assessee's case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on a technical ground because the assessee company was no longer an active or existing entity. Adjudication against a non-existing entity is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the registration of a conveyance deed is not mandatory for availing deduction under Section 54F. The Assessing Officer's view, accepting the claim despite the unregistered deed, was considered a plausible view, thus the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the DRP's directions in the final assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination in conformity with the DRP's directions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance based solely on a previous ITAT order concerning revision proceedings. The issue requires fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that the expenses claimed under the head 'income from other sources' were not deductible as this head of income is residuary and cannot have a loss. Furthermore, the expenses lacked nexus with any income declared under this head.
The Tribunal held that a defect in the penalty notice, where the inapplicable part is not struck off, vitiates the penalty proceedings. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the penalty notice was deemed vague and invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits were realistic and supported by documentary evidence and judicial decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had considered additional evidence and remand reports.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee, as a merchant exporter, procured goods for export. While the addition was not entirely deleted, the Tribunal reduced the addition by estimating the profit on alleged bogus purchases at 6% of the amount.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as the charge for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was not struck off. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition as there was a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Nuruddin Ajani. The revenue also failed to produce relevant statements and corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the share transfer benefit was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as it was not taxable in the hands of the amalgamating company and no new income arose from amalgamation. The disallowance under Section 14A was also restricted to the amount voluntarily offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the contradictory treatment of the assessee's status by the CPC and the denial of deduction under Section 80P. It observed that the assessee is a registered Co-operative Housing Society and the deduction was denied on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made based solely on survey findings without any incriminating material found during a search. Therefore, the additional ground of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that a capital loss on reduction of share capital cannot be allowed if no consideration is received by the shareholders. It relied on the Special Bench decision in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings and orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. Issuing notices under Section 143(2) to a non-existent entity is bad in law, even if the legal heir participated in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was valid as the incorrect claim was apparent from the return. It further held that the disallowance of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC, if not deposited before the due date under the relevant statutes, is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reversal of provision for doubtful debts is to be considered as part of operating income. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court and Delhi Bench of the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was against the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. The levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were also challenged.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to cooperate with the lower authorities. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case properly.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the DRP's decision to dismiss the assessee's objections on technical grounds. The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance for hearings.
The Tribunal held that the fabrication charges received by the assessee were not taxable as fees for technical services in India. It reasoned that the services were not rendered in connection with payments described in the relevant treaty article and that Article 9 could not be used to restructure the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period of April 30, 2021, and therefore, it was without jurisdiction. The relaxation provisions under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, were not applicable in this case.
The Tribunal held that the defect was a technical one and did not affect the substance or intent of the Act, especially in light of Section 292B which aims to prevent invalidation due to minor errors. The revenue authorities took a narrow view by not giving effect to Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even if made before the return filing due date, is not an allowable deduction. This is because the payment must be made by the prescribed due date under the respective acts to be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the date of the share purchase agreement, i.e., April 6, 2018, should be considered the date of purchase, aligning with CBDT Circular No. 704 for off-market transactions. The addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11. For A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11. For A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business expense. It also found that certain loans were accommodation entries and not genuine. However, for compensation paid on flat cancellations, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business expense. It also found that certain loans were accommodation entries and not genuine. However, for compensation paid on flat cancellations, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business expense. It also found that certain loans were accommodation entries and not genuine. However, for compensation paid on flat cancellations, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business expense. It also found that certain loans were accommodation entries and not genuine. However, for compensation paid on flat cancellations, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of natural justice as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing and without receiving a remand report from the AO. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business expense. It also found that certain loans were accommodation entries and not genuine. However, for compensation paid on flat cancellations, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees had offered the income and paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly examined the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021. Therefore, the appeal was not barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of natural justice as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing and without receiving a remand report from the AO. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11. For A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on an ad-hoc or estimated addition, as it does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.