Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income estimated by the ITAT at ₹12,000 per acre for the total landholding should be appropriated equally among the four family members (father and three sons). Consequently, the assessed income for each assessee was adjusted.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income estimated by the ITAT at ₹12,000 per acre for the total landholding should be appropriated equally among the four family members (father and three sons). Consequently, the assessed income for each assessee was adjusted.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on reimbursement of octroi expenses as it was not a payment for services. The Industrial Promotion Subsidy was also held to be a capital receipt, not liable to tax.
The Tribunal held that advances made in the nature of commercial transactions between two concerns do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e). Relying on a CBDT circular, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, upholding the estimation of agricultural expenses. However, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1 lakh.
The Tribunal held that since the primary issue of default under section 201(1) and 201(1A) was decided in favour of the assessee by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty under section 271C was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the source of capital. The authorities below erred by going into the 'source of source', which is not permissible under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of capital gains in the hands of the HUF was deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance do not survive. The assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the acquisition and sale of the property was a business transaction undertaken to liquidate outstanding loan amounts, not an investment. Therefore, the surplus realized was not taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). This was based on the CIT(A)'s findings and the evidence filed by the assessee, especially considering the deduction was allowed in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that when benchmarking international transactions, it is essential to compare like with like. Applying a turnover filter is necessary, and companies with vastly different turnovers and sizes, like Infosys, cannot be considered comparable to a smaller entity.
The Tribunal held that Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs) are distinct from loans or advances. Therefore, the amount received as ICDs cannot be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, as the section specifically refers to loans or advances.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee offered a substantial sum as income, those funds are available to explain other discrepancies. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of telescoping.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on reimbursement of octroi expenses as it was not a payment for services. The Industrial Promotion Subsidy was also held to be a capital receipt, not liable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TDS statement due to technical issues with the e-TDS system, which was newly introduced and had undergone multiple amendments. Therefore, the penalty under section 272A(2)(k) was deleted as per the provisions of section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income estimated by the ITAT at ₹12,000 per acre for the total landholding should be appropriated equally among the four family members (father and three sons). Consequently, the assessed income for each assessee was adjusted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for penalty under Section 271C as the provisions were reversed or paid with TDS in subsequent years. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding working capital adjustment and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer. It also admitted additional evidence for cost allocations and cost recharges and remitted these issues back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the payments were made in cash, the nature of the assessee's work and business exigencies, where labourers move from site to site and may not ordinarily reside at the work location, justified the cash payments. The conditions for exception under Rule 6DD(g) were considered in light of the peculiar facts.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be computed on the basis of net interest paid by the assessee, not gross interest. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the failure to provide cross-examination to the assessee, despite a written request, violates principles of natural justice and makes the addition unsustainable. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee in their cross-objection were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction and provide cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's suo-moto disallowance before resorting to Rule 8D. The mandatory provisions of Section 14A were not followed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction and provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's suo-moto disallowance before applying Rule 8D. Since this condition was not met, the disallowance was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, including manufacturing process charts and photographs, was crucial for adjudication. Since the TPO had examined this evidence and accepted the assessee's manufacturing activity, principles of natural justice were complied with.
The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A are invalid if no incriminating material is found during the search and no assessment was pending at the time of the search. However, for assessment year 2012-13, the addition of cash found in a locker was upheld due to lack of evidence for its source.
The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A are invalid if no incriminating material is found during the search and no assessment was pending at the time of the search. However, for assessment year 2012-13, the addition of cash found in a locker was upheld due to lack of evidence for its source.
The Tribunal observed a discrepancy between the amount under appeal and the amount reflected in the balance sheet. It was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation and explanation of the fixed deposit investments.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim of reimbursement. However, it allowed the assessee's alternate prayer to remit the issue back to the AO for verification, considering the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, including manufacturing process charts and photographs, was crucial for adjudication. Since the TPO had examined this evidence and accepted the assessee's manufacturing activity, principles of natural justice were complied with.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be made on the segment of transactions with associated enterprises and not on an entity-level basis. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow working capital adjustment and consider foreign exchange fluctuations as part of operating revenue.
The Tribunal held that additions in a non-abated assessment must be based on incriminating material. The AO's additions were found unsustainable without such material.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment did not demonstrate any fresh material linking to the escapement of income for AY 2006-07. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance, finding it was based on correct written down value after considering prior year's relief. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute transfer pricing adjustments only on international transactions, citing a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that additions in a non-abated assessment must be based on incriminating material. The AO's additions were found unsustainable without such material.
The Tribunal held that if advances are made in furtherance of the assessee's business, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. The Tribunal also noted the availability of sufficient interest-free funds for the advances made.
The Tribunal held that issuing a demand notice and penalty notice along with the draft assessment order is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 144C. Therefore, the draft assessment order was considered invalid, and the subsequent final assessment order was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted due to belated filing of Form-15G. It also found the salary paid to relatives to be reasonable and deleted the disallowance. However, the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 15,000 was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had not passed a speaking order on the issue of deemed registration from the earlier application. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT to consider the earlier application and grant registration from its inception if deemed appropriate, after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that additions in a non-abated assessment must be based on incriminating material. The AO's additions were found unsustainable without such material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee can claim the higher TDS credit based on the revised Form 16, even if the original return was filed after the due date. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the credit of ₹71,056 and issue the refund.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss arising from the shortfall in exports, due to a forward contract taken to hedge business risks, is a revenue loss and not a speculative loss. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that payments for agricultural produce made to cultivators or growers, even in cash, are exempt from disallowance under Section 40A(3) as per Rule 6DD(e)(i). Payments made to traders who then paid the farmers were also considered valid.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transactions. It directed the AO to verify the employee cost to sales ratio of certain comparable companies and exclude them if the ratio was below 25%, impacting the TP adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the trail of goods by furnishing quantitative details of purchases and sales, and that the purchases were sold to a single party. Since the purchaser was not investigated, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition on account of unrecorded purchases was not sustainable as the assessee had offered the peak credit and gross profit. The disallowance of expenses was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO lacked clarity in recording satisfaction for initiating and levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), failing to specify the exact limb of the offense.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,52,993/- on account of bogus purchases. The assessee's contention that payments were made through banking channels was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of purchases without any trail of goods.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently maintained its stand and provided supporting documents like transfer vouchers and confirmations from the third party. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the explanation of the assessee regarding the 'anamat' gold should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be made on the segment of transactions with associated enterprises and not on an entity-level basis. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow working capital adjustment and consider foreign exchange fluctuations as part of operating revenue.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transactions. It directed the AO to verify the employee cost to sales ratio of certain comparable companies and exclude them if the ratio was below 25%, impacting the TP adjustment.