Loading ITAT cases…
432 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee did not appear or comply with notices. However, to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee failed to appear or comply. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had used the wrong date for the order being appealed, leading to an incorrect calculation of the appeal period. The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to a lack of sufficient details about the trust's activities. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) to give the assessee another opportunity to provide the necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 24(a) and levying penalty was unjustified as there was no evidence of inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee. Furthermore, the AO's failure to specify the exact limb under Section 271(1)(c) for levying penalty rendered the penalty order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not specific enough regarding the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Citing the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee despite a specific request. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,76,725/- as bogus LTCG and Rs. 10,03,836/- as commission expenses. The Tribunal also restored transfer pricing adjustment grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied due to a technical error by the assessee, especially when the income and TDS were disclosed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing the AO to provide TDS credit after verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view in allowing the deduction was a possible view, supported by co-ordinate bench decisions. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied due to a technical error by the assessee, especially when the income and TDS were disclosed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing the AO to provide TDS credit after verification.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous due to the insolvency resolution process of the assessee company. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,76,725/- as bogus LTCG and Rs. 10,03,836/- as commission expenses. The Tribunal also restored transfer pricing adjustment grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the matter was covered under the APA.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee did not appear or comply with notices. However, considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee did not appear or comply with notices. However, considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the tolerance limit (initially 5%, later 10% and 20% for residential units) under Section 43CA should be applied retrospectively. Since the differences in sale values were within these tolerance limits, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee failed to appear or comply. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied due to a technical error by the assessee, especially when the income and TDS were disclosed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing the AO to provide TDS credit after verification.
The Tribunal found that although opportunities were provided, the assessee did not comply. However, considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, found that the addition should be restricted to the profit element. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal allowed the set-off of brought forward losses from an amalgamated company after verification. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding MAT credit including surcharge and cess, but allowed the revenue's ground concerning education cess.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, citing the importance of such evidence in decision-making and to meet the ends of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment for notional interest on extended credit should be made if the assessee also extends similar credit without interest to non-associated enterprises. It also held that foreign currency expenses not recovered from customers and not included in turnover should not be excluded from export turnover for Section 10A computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act 2022 was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that a defect notice under Section 139(9) is appealable if it jeopardizes a refund or if the assessee denies liability. The Tribunal found that the assessee's gross business receipts were below the audit threshold, making the defect notice invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the principles of natural justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the identity of parties from whom land was purchased was established through sale deeds, and the purchase was recorded in the books. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition, especially for amounts confirmed through subsequent evidence.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal emphasized providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing and cooperation for early disposal.
The tribunal held that the marketing expenses issue required further investigation by the AO to ascertain the true nature of expenditure and the services rendered by the marketing agency. Regarding the capitalized expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to verify if the amount was debited to the P&L account, granting relief if it was not.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search in unabated assessment years. Since no such material was found for these assessment years, the additions made by the AO are to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search in unabated assessment years. Since no such material was found for these assessment years, the additions made by the AO are to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search in unabated assessment years. Since no such material was found for these assessment years, the additions made by the AO are to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory under the Companies Act, can be eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the conditions of that section are met. Denying the deduction solely because it's CSR expenditure would lead to double disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act 2022 was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the addition of deemed interest was not tenable as only real income should be taxed, not notional income, and the revenue had accepted similar transactions in a prior year. However, the disallowance of professional fees was upheld due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the returns filed in the name of the non-existent company were correctly treated as 'non est' (void ab initio). However, the AO was duty-bound to consider the tax deducted at source (TDS) and grant any refund due, even if the returns were invalid.
The Tribunal found it unreasonable to estimate net profit at 20% of gross receipts, especially given the company's recurring losses. Considering the failure to furnish supporting documents, the Tribunal restricted the net profit to 6% of gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made purely on an estimated basis. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not properly recording dissatisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowances. It also found that the AO made adjustments to book profit under Section 115JB without proposing them in the draft assessment order. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions for the transfer pricing issue.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, effective from April 1, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The deposit made before the due date of filing the return of income is considered timely.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of flats should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee acted as an investor. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to unexplained expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of flats should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee acted as an investor. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to unexplained expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of flats should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee acted as an investor. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to unexplained expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment for notional interest on extended credit should be made if the assessee also extends similar credit without interest to non-associated enterprises. It also held that foreign currency expenses not recovered from customers and not included in turnover should not be excluded from export turnover for Section 10A computation.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of flats should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee acted as an investor. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to unexplained expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of flats should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee acted as an investor. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to unexplained expenditure and disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that such payments are not deductible under Section 36(1)(va). Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.