Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to the previous assessment year, where a similar adjustment by the TPO was set aside and the matter remitted back for re-adjudication. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO for determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. It found no material on record to controvert the findings of the Pr. Commissioner.
The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty because the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. The Revenue could not demonstrate any infirmity or reversal of the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for preceding years was restored to the AO with specific directions. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim regarding inadequate hearing. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set-aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid and legally sustainable satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The AO inconsistently mentioned 'concealment of income' during initiation and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' during levy, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the additional income of Rs. 10,71,000 was already offered and taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, making the same addition in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, held that interest earned on fixed deposits by an EOU is an incidental activity of their export business and eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the gold loan was cleared by his brother as part of a family settlement, explaining a significant portion of the cash deposit. However, a small balance remained unexplained.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2007-08, the quantum addition was deleted due to jurisdictional issues, rendering the penalty unsustainable. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was quashed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as having been withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing proportionate deduction for completed units of the housing project. It also agreed that the area earmarked for the DP road should be included in calculating the plot size, thus meeting the one-acre minimum requirement.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge (concealing particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars) at the time of initiating penalty proceedings. This lack of specificity violates the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2007-08, the quantum addition was deleted due to jurisdictional issues, rendering the penalty unsustainable. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was quashed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is to examine the assessee's contention regarding jurisdiction and decide the issue accordingly.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding violation of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,45,485/- as bogus purchases. Since no evidence was presented to dispute the information received, the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for initiating and levying penalty was ambiguous as it mentioned both 'concealing particulars of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. This dual mention renders the penalty order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that passing a final assessment order without a draft assessment order is a violation of Section 144C(1) and renders the order without jurisdiction. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the additional disallowance under Section 14A was justified as per Rule 8D(2)(iii). However, it ruled that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) should be allowed in full, as the DSIR's approval of the facility was sufficient and the AO could not curtail the deduction based on partial expense approval.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, held that the disallowance of commission should be restricted to 10%.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on FDRs maintained for securing overdraft facilities, which were commercially necessary for business operations, constituted 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on FDRs maintained for securing overdraft facilities, which were commercially necessary for business operations, constituted 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is mandatory before passing on documents to the Assessing Officer of another person under section 153C. As the Revenue failed to produce evidence of such satisfaction despite multiple opportunities, the assessment order was deemed invalid and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee, but rather to the searched person or their associated entities. Therefore, proceedings under section 153C were not validly initiated as the documents did not 'belong to' the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since a substantial question of law on the issue was admitted by the Bombay High Court, there was no justification for levying penalty. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on FDRs maintained for securing overdraft facilities, which were commercially necessary for business operations, constituted 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. Therefore, it was eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons for reopening to the assessee, violating established legal principles. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is passed with the approval of the Additional CIT under Section 153D, the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263. Therefore, the revision orders passed by the Commissioner were invalid.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is restricted to the extent of exempt income earned, citing precedents from the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders for the preceding assessment years and the Supreme Court judgment in Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P on the interest income earned from investments.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent for the preceding assessment year and the Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd., allowed the deduction on interest income from FDRs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue can seek restoration if exceptions in the circular apply.
The Tribunal held that the issue of carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation for 8 years and setting it off against later assessment years was decided in the assessee's own case. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that a tolerance limit of 10% difference in sale value is acceptable. Since the difference in this case was 13%, the benefit of 10% difference was allowed, and the addition was restricted to the amount exceeding 10%.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB, taking into account the CBDT's subsequent order condoning the delay in filing the return.
The Tribunal held that for computing Long Term Capital Gain, the date of execution of the Sale agreement would be relevant, not the date of the registered sale deed. This was based on the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act and precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee as a co-operative society. It held that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds from D.B. Patil (HUF) could not be ignored if the HUF indeed owned agricultural land and generated income from it. Since these basic facts were not examined, the matter was remanded.