Loading ITAT cases…
459 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on an estimated basis for Section 14A disallowance, and the return was filed before the insertion of Section 14A. Furthermore, many of the additions on which penalties were levied were deleted by appellate authorities. Therefore, the penalty was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on computer software is a debatable issue and not a matter of rectification. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making a rectification on this substantive issue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on computer software is a debatable issue and not a matter of rectification. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making a rectification on this substantive issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. The Tribunal noted that payments were made to daily wage workers within the prescribed limit per person per day, and the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the ground was indeed pressed and there was a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the previous order was recalled to adjudicate the specific ground on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to the assessee. Therefore, the addition was quashed on legal grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 144C of the Act by passing the final assessment order without awaiting the DRP's directions. This procedural lapse vitiates the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued. The return filed in response to section 148 was considered valid, and the mandatory requirement of section 143(2) could not be dispensed with.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) and AO had incorrectly determined the amount of cash deposits for AY 2013-14. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that once sundry balances written back are accepted as business income, they cannot be reduced from business profits for Section 80HHC deduction if they have a nexus with export activity. The matter was remanded for this determination.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued. The return filed in response to section 148 was considered valid, and the mandatory requirement of section 143(2) could not be dispensed with.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the AO. This was due to the assessee's consistent failure to provide necessary details and explanations for the credits in its books, even after multiple opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind to the material on record, including financial statements and submissions. The PCIT's conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts and material available.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue of deductibility of employee share-based payments is debatable. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Act, which is meant for mistakes apparent from the record.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated due to a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. The original assessment had already considered the issue of share premium.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the share swap transaction did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset, thus no capital gains arose. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delay in filing the information, citing technical difficulties and the initial year of electronic filing. The information was ultimately filed before the completion of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has offered the commission amount to tax in a subsequent year (AY 2015-16), the claim for deduction in the current year (AY 2013-14) should be allowed. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. ruled against allowing deductions for late deposits of employee's PF/ESIC contributions, the specific payment of Rs. 7,67,250 made on July 16, 2018, should be considered within time as July 15, 2018, was a Sunday, applying Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition for jewellery was not sustainable as Omkar Realtors had accepted ownership and offered the cash source to tax before the Settlement Commission. The HRA disallowance was also deleted as assessment proceedings were abated.
The Tribunal held that additions for accommodation entries should be restricted to the commission earned by the assessee, not the entire amount. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm addition at 3% commission on the disputed amount, finding no illegality.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C of the Act cannot be sustained without incriminating material, especially when the assessment year was not abated. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C of the Act cannot be sustained without incriminating material, especially when the assessment year was not abated. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions for accommodation entries should be restricted to the commission earned by the assessee, not the entire amount. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm addition at 3% commission on the disputed amount, finding no illegality.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be bogus, the sales of those goods were accepted. Therefore, only the profit embedded in the sales should be added, not the entire purchase amount.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue of valuation of the slump sale to the AO for fresh determination by referring the matter to a valuation expert. It directed the AO to adopt the net worth as computed by the assessee as per Section 50B(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's ground regarding disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date.
The CIT(A) rightly rejected the assessee's books of account due to lack of evidence and estimated the profit at 3% of receipts, considering past profit ratios. The Tribunal found this approach to be in the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, especially since the assessment order was passed before the mandatory e-filing date. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees incurred for employees or directors are generally considered business expenses. Since the assessee company could not obtain corporate membership and the director/partner obtained individual membership, it was deemed to be for the ultimate benefit of the company/LLP.
The Tribunal held that the Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund must be deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant statute for deduction, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. The Tribunal allowed set-off against unabsorbed depreciation and directed re-computation of interest under Section 234B.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B. It found that the assessee had substantiated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 273B.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's residential status or the cost of acquisition of shares. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the adjustment to the transfer price for marketing fees is covered by the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also referred to previous decisions concerning interest paid by an Indian branch to its head office, which were held not to be taxable in India.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee, including a revised certificate from the tax auditor and challans, as it clarified the facts. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of addition under section 36(1)(va) considering this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores related to 'Rajvilas' cash transactions was part of a larger surrendered amount and thus no separate addition was required. Regarding Rs. 29,40,000/- for alleged fund transfer, the Tribunal found no material to link it to the assessee company and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores related to 'Rajvilas' cash transactions was part of a larger surrendered amount and thus no separate addition was required. Regarding Rs. 29,40,000/- for alleged fund transfer, the Tribunal found no material to link it to the assessee company and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be added. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% profit to be a reasonable view, supported by High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the adjustment to the transfer price for marketing fees is covered by the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also referred to previous decisions concerning interest paid by an Indian branch to its head office, which were held not to be taxable in India.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on the merits.
The Tribunal held that a mere agreement to purchase a yet-to-be-constructed property, or payment of advance money, does not constitute acquisition of an asset for the purpose of Section 50 of the Income Tax Act. The asset must exist to be considered acquired.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases, considering it as the profit element embedded in such transactions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and based on relevant High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without appreciating potential reasons for non-appearance and that principles of natural justice require a fresh opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income arises from consideration from additional space allotted to existing members and sale of free flats. The cost of construction is a legitimate expense for the developer in such projects. The real test is whether the assessee has accounted for all revenues, which it did using the completion of contract method.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present evidence regarding the deposit dates. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in considering expenses of the 'Investment and Project' division as direct expenses. However, it directed the AO to disallow only proportionate expenses attributable to investments yielding exempt income and to re-compute the average value of investments excluding those not yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee obtained a bogus accommodation entry. The Tribunal found that the assessee's transactions were supported by documentary evidence, conducted through stock exchange and banking channels, and the holding period was longer than typically seen in such schemes.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning for addition based on the alleged tainted nature of funds was not supported by Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had accepted the source of funds as being from abroad and that the legality of the lender's income is irrelevant for the assessee's income tax assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income and found no business income, Section 44AB was not applicable, making the penalty under Section 271B not leviable. Additionally, the assessee, being a senior citizen, had a reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores related to 'Rajvilas' payments was part of a larger surrendered amount and thus no separate addition was required. Regarding Rs. 29,40,000/- for alleged fund transfer, the Tribunal found no material to link it to the assessee company, setting aside the addition.