Loading ITAT cases…
459 orders · Page 9 of 10
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard, despite the assessee claiming non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite an adjournment application being filed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. This issue is no longer debatable and the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was correct.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not appear to have considered the documents submitted by the assessee, including a list of patients and an affidavit, which were relevant for adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chechmate Services P. Ltd. The issue of leave encashment was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide specific findings on which US law was violated and whether the payments were compensatory or penal. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further examination.
The Tribunal decided that the project administration costs and market data charges should be examined in light of the India-US DTAA. For AY 2017-18, issues regarding interest, carried forward losses, and penalty proceedings were addressed.
The Tribunal decided that the project administration costs and market data charges should be examined in light of the India-US DTAA. For AY 2017-18, issues regarding interest, carried forward losses, and penalty proceedings were addressed.
The Tribunal decided that the project administration costs and market data charges should be examined in light of the India-US DTAA. For AY 2017-18, issues regarding interest, carried forward losses, and penalty proceedings were addressed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes on the foreign exchange gain and transfer pricing adjustment issues. The issue of book profit computation was decided in favor of the assessee, while interest under sections 234B and 234C was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, as notices were allegedly not served. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and provide any evidence regarding TDS payment or deductees' tax compliance. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) had been invoked against the assessee, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The dismissal was without prejudice to the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the maintenance and support services provided by the assessee did not 'make available' technical knowledge or expertise to the Indian customers, as required by the DTAA. Therefore, these services were not taxable as FTS in India.
The Tribunal held that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind when approving the reopening notice, as it erroneously mentioned a non-existent section. Therefore, the reopening was invalid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence and documentation regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. The CIT(A)'s order was considered reasoned and conclusive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties involved in the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order, passed pursuant to a reference made before the search and while proceedings were pending, had abated due to the search. Therefore, the additions made by the AO based on this abated order were bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the assessee had provided detailed evidence of purchases and sales, and these were not found to be incorrect. The estimated addition of gross profit alone was not sufficient grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the assessee had provided detailed evidence of purchases and sales, and these were not found to be incorrect. The estimated addition of gross profit alone was not sufficient grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the assessee had provided detailed evidence of purchases and sales, and these were not found to be incorrect. The estimated addition of gross profit alone was not sufficient grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the assessee had provided detailed evidence of purchases and sales, and these were not found to be incorrect. The estimated addition of gross profit alone was not sufficient grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 5.71 crores based on a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration or proper application of mind regarding the nature of receipts. The CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming this addition.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that some deposits were made within grace periods or immediately after holidays. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the actual utilization of loan funds was not examined by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of how the loan funds were utilized.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions, the MOU terms, or relevant correspondences. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan taken for acquiring a capital asset is not chargeable to tax under Section 41(1) or Section 28(iv). Following its own prior decision in the assessee's case, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 5.71 crores based on a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration or proper application of mind regarding the nature of receipts. The CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming this addition.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the assessee had provided detailed evidence of purchases and sales, and these were not found to be incorrect. The estimated addition of gross profit alone was not sufficient grounds for penalty.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to tax withheld and employee living expenses, finding that these were correctly excluded from export turnover for Section 10A calculations. The issue of warranty income was also dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee for being delinquent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and discharged its onus regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions and parties. The CIT(A) had relied on previous year's decisions where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence for the transactions and that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business sales and that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of a non-notarized affidavit for delay.
The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal vacated the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the Pr.CIT was barred by limitation. The Tribunal also noted that if queries are raised and responded to, the AO's order cannot be deemed to lack application of mind simply because it's not explicitly dealt with.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, which favored the assessee. It noted that the existence of a DAPE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is found to be not at arm's length, which was not the case here. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, which favored the assessee. It noted that the existence of a DAPE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is found to be not at arm's length, which was not the case here. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 for the purchase of two residential houses, interpreting 'a residential house' to include plural. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow 50% of the expenditure claimed for renovation and furnishing of the new properties.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had violated the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act by not following the directions of the DRP. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is an allowable deduction for charitable trusts in computing their income, even if the capital expenditure was treated as application of income in earlier years, provided it was not claimed as application of income in the current year. The amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective.