Loading ITAT cases…
171 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that in cases of non-abated assessments where no incriminating material was found during the search, no additions can be made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction and was unclear about the specific limb for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). This ambiguity and lack of clarity violate established legal principles, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition related to stock that had already been offered for taxation by the firm and an individual. However, additions for other unaccounted stock and gross profit on suppressed sales were upheld.
The Tribunal held that payments for the use of software, database access, and consultancy fees are not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the investment in the flat was made in AY 2009-10, not AY 2010-11, and directed deletion of the addition for unexplained investment in the flat for AY 2010-11. The issue of unexplained cash was considered together for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that payments for the use of software, database access, and consultancy fees are not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained deposits under Section 68. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the suspicious nature of the funds' origin.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made in non-abated assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The Assessing Officer's change of income head without such material was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of advertisement expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) needs verification of TDS compliance and restored it to the AO. The disallowance of depreciation was upheld as the business was found to be shut down. The disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO to examine the use of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that closely linked transactions, including high seas sales, should be aggregated within the trading segment for benchmarking. Since the aggregated margins were higher than comparables, no adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal held that closely linked transactions, including high seas sales, should be aggregated within the trading segment for benchmarking. Since the aggregated margins were higher than comparables, no adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made in non-abated assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The Assessing Officer's change of income head without such material was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had adequately enquired into the matter, and the assessee had provided satisfactory replies. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not warranted, as it was not a case of 'no enquiry'.
The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to establish the receipt of services from its associated enterprise. However, the TPO's jurisdiction is limited to determining the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions. The assessee was directed to provide translated documents, and the TPO was instructed to verify the evidence and then determine the ALP.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed if the additional income declared during survey is subsequently offered in the revised return, as there is no concealment of income in the revised return.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained deposits under Section 68. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the suspicious nature of the funds' origin.
The Tribunal held that in cases of non-abated assessments where no incriminating material was found during the search, no additions can be made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made in non-abated assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The Assessing Officer's change of income head without such material was not justified.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made in non-abated assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The Assessing Officer's change of income head without such material was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the investment in the flat was made in AY 2009-10, not AY 2010-11, and directed deletion of the addition for unexplained investment in the flat for AY 2010-11. The issue of unexplained cash was considered together for both assessment years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This was primarily due to the non-appearance of the assessee and the lack of contrary material to dispute the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the classification of expenditure.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and where the original assessment had not abated, no addition could be made to a finalized assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the deduction.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, particularly regarding the deletion of additions for earlier assessment years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and where the original assessment had not abated, no addition could be made to a finalized assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of additions for earlier years and the partial confirmation of expenditure as revenue in nature for later years.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the crucial date for calculating the limitation period for penalty is when the ITAT's order is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the AO deviated from the TPO's order by treating the entire royalty as capital expenditure. It also found that the TPO's determination of Nil ALP was not sustainable as services were availed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the person mentioned in the seized document was the assessee. Furthermore, the absence of corroborative evidence and the inability to cross-examine a key witness rendered the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) as claimed, rendering the alternate deductions under section 35(1)(iv) invalid. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under section 14A, finding sufficient own funds for investments.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and where the original assessment had not abated, no addition could be made to a finalized assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by enhancing the income from a fresh source that was neither part of the return nor considered by the Assessing Officer. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) as claimed, rendering the alternate deductions under section 35(1)(iv) invalid. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under section 14A, finding sufficient own funds for investments.
The Tribunal held that the AO deviated from the TPO's order by treating the entire royalty as capital expenditure. It also found that the TPO's determination of Nil ALP was not sustainable as services were availed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in estimating the cost of acquisition by using a per square meter rate of a distant property. The assessee should have been allowed to get the valuation done by a registered valuer.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material and where the original assessment had not abated, no addition could be made to a finalized assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the deduction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request.