Loading ITAT cases…
945 orders · Page 15 of 19
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, the addition made on merits was deleted. The assessee had provided documentary evidence of genuine transactions, and the Assessing Officer failed to provide contrary material or conduct independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments stating that Section 80P(4) is not applicable to disallow such claims.
The Tribunal found that the source of payment for stamp duty was clearly evident from the funds credited in the assessee's husband's bank account. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as per the un-amended provisions of Section 151(2). Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) exceeded his jurisdiction by examining matters reserved for the Assessing Officer and that the assessee's activities fall within the charitable purpose definition under Section 2(15). The charge of 'specified violation' was not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) exceeded his jurisdiction by examining matters reserved for the Assessing Officer and that the assessee's activities fall within the charitable purpose definition under Section 2(15). The charge of 'specified violation' was not substantiated.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-appearance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs and filing an affidavit explaining the delay. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs and filing an affidavit explaining the delay. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without following the procedure under Rule 46A, which requires giving the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition for barrel purchases was unsustainable as the assessee had provided documentary evidence. For client code modification, the Tribunal found no independent evidence of the assessee's involvement and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits and the assessee had reasons for non-compliance. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) has granted the registration under Section 12AB and 80G in a subsequent order, the present appeals have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) has granted the registration under Section 12AB and 80G in a subsequent order, the present appeals have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as they were supported by documentary evidence and conducted through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange. The Revenue failed to establish any specific nexus between the assessee and any alleged operators.
The Tribunal held that when additional evidence is admitted at the appellate stage, it must be examined following prescribed procedures, including obtaining a remand report from the AO. The CIT(A) should consider the additional evidence and afford both parties an effective opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted additional evidence without following the procedure under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing necessary documents. The Commissioner's direction to compute gross profit on alleged bogus purchases at the rate of genuine purchases was considered appropriate.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid and barred by limitation, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Consequently, the notice and assessment order are quashed.
The CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer erred by not considering repayments and by treating gross advances as unexplained investment. The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the advances were made from a sanctioned cash credit facility and business fund rotation, thus the source was explained.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible in the absence of exempt income. It also ruled that the deduction under Section 35DD for stamp duty related to demerger expenses should be allowed, following its own prior decision.
The Tribunal found the Assessee's reasons for non-compliance to be bona fide and plausible. Therefore, it decided to grant one more opportunity to the Assessee to present its case before the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of making a transfer pricing adjustment was unjustified, especially since a similar transaction in a prior assessment year was accepted as at arm's length. The Tribunal emphasized consistency in treatment when facts and circumstances are identical.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of receipts from offshore supply contracts has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in its own case for earlier assessment years, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. The Tribunal found no change in facts for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including commission agreements, invoices, and bank realization certificates, to substantiate the commission expenditure. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not presented any material to prove the expenditure was not genuine or not incurred for the export business.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the assessment under section 153A for an unabated assessment year. The crucial material establishing the distance from a municipality was gathered post-search.
The Tribunal held that since both purchase and sale legs were accommodation entries and the profit was already offered to tax, no further addition was warranted for 'Entity A' transactions. For 'Entity B' transactions, applying manufacturing GP rate to trading was unjustified, and since books were not rejected and profit was offered, no further addition was sustained.
The Tribunal held that since both purchase and sale legs were accommodation entries and the profit was already offered to tax, no further addition was warranted for 'Entity A' transactions. For 'Entity B' transactions, applying manufacturing GP rate to trading was unjustified, and since books were not rejected and profit was offered, no further addition was sustained.
The Tribunal held that since both purchase and sale legs were accommodation entries and the profit was already offered to tax, no further addition was warranted for 'Entity A' transactions. For 'Entity B' transactions, applying manufacturing GP rate to trading was unjustified, and since books were not rejected and profit was offered, no further addition was sustained.
The Tribunal held that since both purchase and sale legs were accommodation entries and the profit was already offered to tax, no further addition was warranted for 'Entity A' transactions. For 'Entity B' transactions, applying manufacturing GP rate to trading was unjustified, and since books were not rejected and profit was offered, no further addition was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing contemporaneous documentary evidence (Wealth-tax returns and bullion purchase invoices) showing availability of jewellery exceeding the quantity found. The Revenue failed to provide evidence that the disclosed jewellery was disposed of or that the found jewellery was from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to ascertain the status of both appeals and dispose of them together after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The ITAT held that the notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining sanction from the competent authority as required by section 151(ii) of the Act. This was a jurisdictional defect that vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter should be considered the relevant agreement for determining stamp duty value under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), but remanded the issue for verification of actual stamp duty value and payment channels. Regarding Section 69, the Tribunal found that the major portion of investment was by the father, but the assessee's own contribution of Rs. 25,00,000/- required verification of its source.
The Tribunal restored the issues of additions concerning Shri Ashish Shah and Smt. Vandana Dayal Bhojwani to the Assessing Officer for limited verification. The addition for Smt. Bhojwani would be deleted if the cheque was dishonoured and not credited, and for Shri Shah, it would be restricted to the unexplained amount after verification.
The Tribunal found that the issue required factual verification regarding prior year disallowances, write-backs, and payments. It held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) could not be satisfactorily adjudicated based solely on the return and audit report.
The Tribunal found that the issue required factual verification regarding prior year disallowances, write-backs, and payments. It held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) could not be satisfactorily adjudicated based solely on the return and audit report.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The judgment details numerous grounds of appeal by the Revenue concerning various additions and disallowances made by the AO. The specific outcome for each ground is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing contemporaneous documentary evidence (Wealth-tax returns and bullion purchase invoices) showing availability of jewellery exceeding the quantity found. The Revenue failed to provide evidence that the disclosed jewellery was disposed of or that the found jewellery was from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. It emphasized the principles of natural justice and directed the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of an agreement or arrangement between the assessee and its associated enterprise (AE) for incurring AMP expenses, no transfer pricing adjustment can be made. The expenses were incurred for the assessee's own business expansion and market penetration, not for the benefit of the AE.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹26,70,491/- was not warranted as these transactions were already disclosed and settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. For the remaining ₹33,90,400/-, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that it was due to a broker's error and not attributable to the assessee, deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under section 263, which formed the jurisdictional basis for the assessment, was quashed, the consequential assessment order could not survive independently. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the issue was primarily factual and depended on documentary evidence not produced before the lower authorities. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 11,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the issue could not be adjudicated solely on the basis of figures in the return and tax audit report, as it required verification of prior year disallowances, write-backs, and payments. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were invalid due to lack of proper sanction from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the subscription charges received by the assessee for access to databases and journals do not constitute royalty income. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal ruled that these receipts are for copyrighted articles, not for the use of copyright or equipment, and thus are not taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal restored the issue of commission expenses to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to furnish documentary evidence. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim. The grounds related to the donation claim were not explicitly adjudicated in the provided excerpt, but the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were invalid due to lack of proper sanction from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.