Loading ITAT cases…
477 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal held that failure to provide reasons in a quasi-judicial order amounts to a denial of justice, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now filed the death certificate of her husband and the municipal tax receipt, along with bank statements evidencing payment. Therefore, for the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard and on a mistaken assumption that the VSVS applied to the current appeal. The matter was therefore restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard before the Assessing Officer. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the assessee's sales were not doubted, disallowing the entire purchases would be erroneous. They confirmed that taxing only the profit embedded in the bogus purchases, estimated at 3%, was just and proper.
The ITAT found that although the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the market value of shares and share premium, finding that the nature and source of funds were explained and the relevant provisions for taxation were not applicable for the assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A was also correctly deleted as there was no exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the motor car, even though it was not registered in its name. This is because the payment was made by the company, it was mortgaged by the company, and it was shown as an asset of the company in its books and wealth tax return.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including agreements and actuarial reports, as crucial for adjudication. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of nine days in filing the appeal, considering the pandemic situation and the assessee's claim of no delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and that the issue should have been decided on merits. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. CIT', the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for belated payments.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was erroneous as it did not fall under the permitted categories. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on technical grounds was also considered hyper-technical.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the valuation was excessive and the AO should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The matter was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration after referring the valuation to the DVO.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of PE in India and income attribution was settled by previous orders. It dismissed the addition on reimbursement of expenses, allowed TDS credit and interest claims for statistical purposes, and dismissed the penalty proceedings as premature.
The Tribunal restored the issues of interest on borrowings/placements and guarantee commission to the TPO for de novo benchmarking. This was based on the Tribunal's previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as the cash deposits were explained by the opening cash balance and amounts received back from sub-contractors, which were duly recorded in the assessee's audited books of accounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had repeatedly noted incomplete books and discrepancies. To ensure a fair assessment, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the books.
The Tribunal restored the issues of interest on borrowings/placements and guarantee commission back to the TPO for de novo benchmarking. This was based on the Tribunal's previous decisions for the same assessee in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were swayed by general investigation reports without analyzing the specific facts of the assessee's case. The transaction was genuine, with shares bought and sold on the BSE through a demat account, and taxes were paid on the marginal gain.
The Tribunal restored the issues of interest on borrowings/placements and guarantee commission to the TPO for de novo benchmarking. This was based on the Tribunal's previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that a punching error in the electronic filing of the return, leading to an inflated income, should be rectified. The addition made on account of this error was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits set by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the depreciation was claimed in the original return before the survey, making the Goetze India Ltd. principle inapplicable. Evidence like purchase invoices, delivery challans, and MSEDCL communications indicated the windmill was commissioned and put to use by March 31, 2006.
The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). Considering the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the business loss claim, finding that the assessee was a regular share trader and the transactions were genuine. The addition under Section 69C was also allowed as consequential. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding no infirmity. It noted that while the AO sought details of donations, there was no material on record to show the assessee provided them during assessment, thus the AO might not have conducted basic verification.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter should be considered as the 'agreement to sell' for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x), provided part payments were made through banking channels before the registration date. The stamp duty value on the allotment letter date should be used.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly adjudicate the issue of interest expenses and lacked factual findings. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the additional ground.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence provided by the assessee was crucial and unrebutted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and distinguished the reliance on the Soignee R. Kothari case.
The Tribunal held that once the substratum for the levy of penalty has been eroded by the deletion of the additions, the penalty proceedings do not survive. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of annual letting value on unsold stock is a debatable issue, and the AO had made sufficient enquiry. However, the AO's acceptance of loss on sale of car and TDS interest/penalty without proper enquiry was considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed by the ITAT, the assessment order passed in pursuance thereof became a nullity. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal proceedings before him.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue regarding the unexplained cash deposits made after November 16, 2016. However, regarding the allowance of deduction under Section 11(1)(d), the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's plea that it was rectified, modifying the CIT's direction.
The Tribunal held that the lease transaction was proved, especially since a similar transaction involving a sister concern was accepted by the department. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the gas cylinders.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB, the deduction under Section 80HHC should be the full eligible profit, not reduced by the percentage stipulated in Section 80HHC(1B). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issues without submissions from the assessee on merits, despite providing opportunities. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that sales tax incentives should be excluded from book profits under Section 115JB. It also dismissed grounds related to excise duty exemption and allowed certain grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a refund of the excess dividend distribution tax paid. It also directed the AO to grant interest on this refund and recompute other related interest charges as per law.
The Tribunal allowed the addition related to negative reserves, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. However, it confirmed additions for income credited to shareholder accounts and disallowed a Section 80G deduction. The Tribunal also allowed certain other grounds, leading to a mixed outcome for the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO was incorrect, relying on previous judgments and a High Court decision. Regarding depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim, considering that other intangible assets acquired during the same amalgamation were allowed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, after their demise was intimated to the Assessing Officer, is invalid and bad in law. The provisions of Section 159(2) of the Act were considered, and it was noted that the issuance of a notice to a deceased person is not a curable defect under Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 68, which deals with share premium, was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating the delay was not deliberate and the assessee should not be penalized for the CA's omission. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat lease rentals as business income, following CBDT circulars and High Court rulings. It also directed the AO to re-compute depreciation on assets, treating the current assessment year as the first year of claim.
The Tribunal held that once the substratum for the levy of penalty has been eroded by the deletion of the additions, the penalty proceedings do not survive. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide reasons in a quasi-judicial order amounts to a denial of justice, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence provided by the assessee was crucial and unrebutted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and distinguished the reliance on the Soignee R. Kothari case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable due to the company being under liquidation and the Official Liquidator's non-appearance. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when income is offered on a presumptive basis under the tonnage tax scheme.