Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 4 of 10
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 the disallowance of PF and ESIC contributions paid before the return filing due date but after the statutory due dates is sustained, following the Apex Court's decision. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the AO for further investigation.
The Tribunal held that the management service fees were not taxable as royalty under the India-France DTAA, considering the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause and the India-USA DTAA. It also held that TSIS fees were not taxable as royalty.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the inability to appear during the pandemic. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in assuming revisionary jurisdiction. It found that the AO had made adequate enquiries and that the depreciation on goodwill was correctly allowed based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Smifs Securities Limited.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits by providing evidence of her business income, opening cash balances, and cash in hand from preceding and succeeding years. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had failed to properly examine this evidence.
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 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 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 the Assessing Officer had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 due to factual and legal infirmities in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case regarding the claim of double addition and set-off. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory period of four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reopening and subsequent assessment were bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 201(1A) and Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012, particularly the insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), are curative and retrospective. If the assessee files the necessary declarations and the payee has paid the tax, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not to be made.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The conversion of flats into duplex was considered a marketing strategy by the assessee, not a violation of the section's conditions.
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 the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The conversion of flats into duplex was considered a marketing strategy by the assessee, not a violation of the section's conditions.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The order was set aside to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present his case.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one last opportunity to furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the provided evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of freebies to doctors, following a Supreme Court decision. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning weighted deduction for R&D expenses and remanded the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the AO.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one last opportunity to furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the provided evidence.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and grant credit for TDS if admissible, passing the appeal effect order within two months. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO during the verification process.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were undisputed and the assessee was in the business of trading, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 8% across all parties, following a previous order for a different assessment year. Ground 1 regarding reopening was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in assuming revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment order, having been passed pursuant to DRP directions, was not subject to revision by the PCIT. The Tribunal also found that the issue of interest on perpetual hybrid securities was correctly dealt with by the Assessing Officer.
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 the management service fees were not taxable as royalty under the India-France DTAA, considering the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause and the India-USA DTAA. It also held that TSIS fees were not taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in assuming revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment order, having been passed pursuant to DRP directions, was not subject to revision by the PCIT. The Tribunal also found that the issue of interest on perpetual hybrid securities was correctly dealt with by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company's proceedings were before the NCLT. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to choose the valuation method (DCF) as per Rule 11UA, and the AO could not reject it solely based on a deviation between projected and actual cash flows. The AO's rejection of the DCF method and imposition of the NAV method was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) was justified. The addition of 2% of total sales and purchases as commission income for providing bogus entries was also deemed correct.
The Tribunal held that the advances were made for genuine business and commercial considerations, specifically for acquiring land to overcome land ceiling restrictions for windmill installations. Therefore, these transactions did not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The conversion of flats into duplex was considered a marketing strategy by the assessee, not a violation of the section's conditions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had invalidly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment under Section 147 due to factual and legal infirmities in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of freebies to doctors, following a Supreme Court decision. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning weighted deduction for R&D expenses and remanded the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the AO.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the management service fees were not taxable as royalty under the India-France DTAA, considering the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause and the India-USA DTAA. It also held that TSIS fees were not taxable as royalty.
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 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 since the abandoned project did not result in the creation of a new asset or enduring benefit, the expenses were revenue in nature and allowable as business expenditure.
The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer could not be continued due to the provisions of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The respondent was also not properly substituted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, acknowledging that the assessee's grievance was resolved by the AO's rectification. The decision was based on the peculiar facts and not to be treated as a precedent.
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 the appointment of the Special Auditor was in violation of Section 142(2A) as the twin conditions of complexity of accounts and interest of revenue were not met. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed time-barred and liable to be quashed.
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 the Assessing Officer could not alter the draft assessment order without DRP direction and that Section 115JB does not permit adding ALP adjustments to book profit. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
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.