Loading ITAT cases…
477 orders · Page 2 of 10
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 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 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 a refund cannot be adjusted against a demand arising from a protective addition, as such a demand cannot be enforced until it is converted into a substantive addition.
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 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 held that a refund cannot be adjusted against a demand arising from a protective addition, as such a demand cannot be enforced until it is converted into a substantive addition.
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 held that the disallowance of employee PF contribution for April 2019 needs to be examined factually to ascertain if it was paid by the correct due date of May 15, 2019. The disallowance related to ESI contribution was confirmed.
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 adjustment made under section 143(1) for the disallowance of employee PF and ESI contributions paid after the due date is permissible. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. CIT.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision for the same assessee, held that the payments were in the nature of commission. However, it directed the AO to verify if the recipients had disclosed these amounts in their income tax returns, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of producing odoriferous compounds qualified as manufacturing for Section 80IC deduction. For another issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to restrict disallowance to investments yielding tax-free income.
The Tribunal held that liabilities associated with the transferred project were also transferred to the sister concern, and therefore, no addition was warranted. Regarding estimated profit, the Tribunal reduced the estimation based on the sister concern's profit.
The assessee's representative submitted a letter to withdraw the appeals for both assessment years. The Tribunal, having heard the submissions, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The assessee's representative submitted a letter to withdraw the appeals for both assessment years. The Tribunal, having heard the submissions, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that commission payable to whole-time directors is part of their salary and TDS is deductible under Section 192 only at the time of payment. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a 'callous order' by disposing of the appeal for AY 2012-13 as if it were for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the issue of non-granting of interest on refund was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the purchase and sale of shares was genuine and supported by bank statements, demat accounts, and broker confirmations. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were not genuine.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's agricultural income, which was accepted by the AO and CIT(A). The gift received from the HUF was also held to be exempt from tax as it was out of the HUF's current year's income.
The Tribunal held that similar additions made in preceding assessment years were deleted by it. Following its consistent view, the addition made under Section 41(1) for the current assessment year was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that commission payable to whole-time directors is part of their salary and TDS is deductible under Section 192 only at the time of payment. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions were not justified as the Bombay High Court had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the interest income was not chargeable to tax in India.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary sanction from the Pr.CIT/CIT as required by Section 151 for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the assessment order was also deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions were not justified as the Bombay High Court had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the interest income was not chargeable to tax in India.