Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance despite multiple notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits with supporting evidence, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the donations were given for a specific purpose of purchasing assets and were treated as capital receipts by the assessee, they constitute capital receipts and are not taxable. The Tribunal also noted that Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable as the donations were received prior to 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of commission expenses without properly appreciating the documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's reliance on a remand report deviating from natural justice principles was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a personal hearing via two letters, which was a requirement under the Faceless Appeals Scheme, 2021. The CIT(A) failed to provide this opportunity, thus violating the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments were made through account payee cheques and the nature of services was provided. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the additions without appreciating the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal concerning business loss, holding that only depreciation loss could be carried forward for belatedly filed returns. It allowed the appeal for deletion of addition on account of unexplained jewelry, applying a circular benevolently. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for PPF deposits made in the son's account.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee did not attend the appellate proceedings, they had filed written submissions and documentary evidence. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, should have considered these submissions before disposing of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the booking of a flat in an under-construction apartment should be considered a case of construction, not purchase. The commencement date of construction is not relevant, provided the construction is completed within three years from the date of transfer of the original property, fulfilling the requirements of Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not sustainable when the assessee disclosed higher closing stock in its books than what was reported to the bank. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions, following earlier consistent orders.
The Tribunal held that the surplus realized on the redemption of NCDs is in the nature of interest income and not capital gains. Consequently, the assessee is not eligible for deductions under sections 54F and 54EC.
The Tribunal held that the surplus realized on redemption of NCDs is in the nature of interest income and not capital gains. Consequently, the assessee is not eligible for deductions under sections 54F and 54EC.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by a previous order, the penalty itself had no foundation and must also be deleted. The penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the preparation of pickles and spices constitutes manufacturing for the purpose of Section 10B, especially considering the Explanation to Section 10B which includes 'process' within 'manufacture'. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the formation of undertakings and export realization.
The Tribunal held that the confirmation of additions by the lower authorities was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, TDS details, and proof of payment by account payee cheques. The Tribunal found that the commission payments were for genuine business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments were for business purposes and were made via account payee cheques. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had completed assessments for subsequent years where creditors' balances became zero, implying the genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments were made via account payee cheques and that the nature of services was provided. It also noted that subsequent years' assessments had zeroed out the creditor balances. The additions were therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the donations were given for a specific purpose of purchasing assets and were treated as capital receipts by the assessee, they constitute capital receipts and are not taxable. The Tribunal also noted that Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable as the donations were received prior to 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions solely on the basis that the assessee did not provide the return of income of the commission recipients. The Tribunal noted that commission was paid through account payee cheques and the nature of services was provided.
The Tribunal held that the payments for infrastructure data center charges and other service charges (referral fees) were not taxable as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA, following its own previous decisions. The issue of management service fees was also decided in favor of the assessee based on prior rulings.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was justified, the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries into the evidence submitted by the assessee during reassessment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus to prove the loan transaction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the credit of gifted jewellery, deleting the addition sustained by the CIT(A). However, it dismissed the assessee's appeal concerning the addition of seized cash, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the cash was unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the property purchase was indeed part of a family settlement and thus the addition under Section 69/69B was not tenable. For the house property income, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding municipal ratable value and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The AO's reasons were based on suspicion rather than a belief formed on tangible material, and the additional condition for reopening after four years was not met.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer, upholding the deletions made by the CIT(A) for additions under Sections 68, 69A, and 69C. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's grounds, often relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer, upholding the deletions made by the CIT(A) for additions under Sections 68, 69A, and 69C. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's grounds, often relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses for the assessee's product naturally belong to the assessee. However, the timing and nature of payments made to Mr. Rajeev Arora and the actors were questioned.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses for the assessee's product naturally belonged to the assessee. However, it also noted that the document indicated payments were made before the relevant assessment year and by third parties, requiring further examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer, upholding the deletions made by the CIT(A) for additions under Sections 68, 69A, and 69C. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's grounds, often relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer, upholding the deletions made by the CIT(A) for additions under Sections 68, 69A, and 69C. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's grounds, often relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer, upholding the deletions made by the CIT(A) for additions under Sections 68, 69A, and 69C. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's grounds, often relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off STCL against any STCG as per Section 70(2) of the Income Tax Act, and this right is unqualified. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in similar cases, where it was held that the assessee has the freedom to choose how to claim the set-off, and the fact that it results in lower taxes cannot be a ground for denial.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the LTCG and the loan transaction. The AO's reliance on general investigation reports and statements of third parties without specific evidence against the assessee was not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer, considering the appellant's submissions about prior year claims for application of income. The Tribunal allowed the set off of prior year deficits based on jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not have been made as the amount was reflected in the capital account and not claimed as expenditure. The AO had not even come to a definite conclusion on how the amount was treated. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search are unsustainable. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal ruled that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount, citing jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2009-10 & 2010-11), additions made in the original assessment under Section 143(3) could not be re-added under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. This was based on the settled position of law as per *CIT vs Kabul Chawla* and *PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.* The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted partial relief on merits for these issues in the original assessments. Regarding the addition of notional gains to foreign fluctuation translation reserve for AY 2014-15 while computing book profit under Section 115JB, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's claim. It reasoned that there was no specific adjustment prescribed for such gains in Explanation (1) to Section 115JB. Furthermore, the AO had accepted similar treatment in earlier unabated years (2012-13 & 2013-14), and the principle of consistency, as laid down in *Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT*, was applied. The Tribunal directed the reduction of the inadvertently added gain from the book profit computation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It acknowledged that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year.
The Tribunal ruled that for unabated assessment years, additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. It also allowed the assessee's claim for AY 2014-15 regarding the exclusion of notional gains credited to a foreign fluctuation translation reserve from book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had not made any changes to the assessed income, only rectifying the calculation of interest under section 234B. Since no material was presented to differ from the CIT(A)'s findings, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions made in Section 153A assessments must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal ruled that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount, citing jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The corrigendum rectifies a mistake in the assessment year mentioned in the original order. The assessment year was incorrectly stated as '2000-01' instead of the correct '2001-2002'.
The Tribunal held that the substantive addition made in the case of M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. for over-invoicing was unjustified. Consequently, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was also deleted.
On Issue 1, the Tribunal noted that AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 were unabated assessments. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reliance on the Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell decisions, which state that completed assessments can only be disturbed in Section 153A proceedings if incriminating material is found. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had partly allowed relief on merits concerning these issues. The Tribunal's final decision on this issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it implies a partial allowance or dismissal based on the outcome of the appeals. On Issue 2, the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee. It observed that notional gains credited directly to the foreign fluctuation translation reserve, in compliance with AS-11, were not routed through the P&L account. The Tribunal noted that there is no specific adjustment prescribed in Explanation (1) to Section 115JB for such gains. Crucially, the Tribunal pointed out that similar gains were accepted by the same AO in earlier unabated AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 without adverse inference. Citing Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, the Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to change a position that has been sustained in earlier years. Therefore, the assessee's claim for reduction of the inadvertently added foreign fluctuation translation reserve was allowed for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had accepted the revised computation of income in its entirety while giving effect to the appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the substantive addition made in the case of M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. for over-invoicing was unjustified. Consequently, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was also deleted.