Loading ITAT cases…
2,007 tribunal orders from the Pune bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 2,007 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the existence of the claimed business and therefore could not substantiate its claims. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the additions made by the AO was deemed fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal found the agreement for business takeover to be in order and not an afterthought, as there was no evidence to suspect its genuineness. The addition made on account of stock discrepancy was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law due to the non-issuance of the statutory notice under Section 143(2). This decision followed a precedent set by the Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the bank loan taken by the assessee as a source for stock investment. The Tribunal held that the statement made during the survey is not sacrosanct and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue after considering the loan transaction.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's financial background and the ad-hoc nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, restricted the addition to Rs. 50,000/- on an ad-hoc basis.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law due to the non-issuance of the statutory notice under Section 143(2). This decision followed a precedent set by the Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal found the agreement for business takeover to be in order and not an afterthought, as there was no evidence to suspect its genuineness. The addition made on account of stock discrepancy was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without considering the assessee's written replies and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it failed to address the assessee's arguments and merely extracted the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of Hawala purchases cannot be added as income. Following a jurisdictional High Court precedent, the addition was restricted to 10% of the Hawala purchase amount, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that no rental income can be computed on flats held as stock-in-trade, overturning the impugned order. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the addition on account of capital gain. The decision was based on the similarity of facts with previous Tribunal orders concerning other co-owners.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of Hawala purchases cannot be added as income. Following a jurisdictional High Court precedent, the addition was restricted to 10% of the Hawala purchase amount, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were business-related and not interest-free advances, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It also allowed the appeal regarding capital gains, finding the addition not maintainable based on a previous ruling.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the exact limb of the section under which the penalty was imposed, both at the time of initiation and levy.
The Tribunal held that the payment for shared services was not deductible due to lack of evidence of service receipt and the assessee's internal performance of such functions. For trademark payments, the matter was remitted for fresh determination considering the combined royalty rate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, following its own previous decision for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal noted that co-operative banks were extended this benefit and that the specific conditions for deduction were met.
The Tribunal held that the payment for shared services was not deductible due to lack of evidence of service receipt and the assessee's internal performance of such functions. For trademark payments, the matter was remitted for fresh determination considering the combined royalty rate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E is applicable only to TDS statements filed after June 1, 2015, as the power to charge such fees was introduced by an amendment effective from that date. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the cases for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the applicability of Section 44AB to the assessee's activities. Penalty provisions must be strictly construed, and the ingredients for imposing penalty under Section 271B were not established.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the orders of his predecessor and coordinate benches of the Tribunal on similar issues for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the payment for shared services was not deductible due to lack of evidence of service receipt and the assessee's internal performance of such functions. For trademark payments, the matter was remitted for fresh determination considering the combined royalty rate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the applicability of Section 44AB to the assessee's activities. Penalty provisions must be strictly construed, and the ingredients for imposing penalty under Section 271B were not established.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty, making the penalty unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty is imposed, both at the time of initiation and levy. Ambiguity in specifying the limb renders the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be allowed prior to the computation of total income and set off of losses, as per the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of cash deposits in the director's bank account, which was a prerequisite for the loan.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the transaction genuine and at arm's length. The Revenue failed to provide material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, stating that Section 41(1) was not applicable as no allowance or deduction was claimed by the assessee. Payments were made in the subsequent year and offered to tax then.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries regarding URD purchases, including issuing summons and seeking clarifications, indicating an application of mind. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not warranted.