Loading ITAT cases…
40 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the search was justified as incriminating material was found. It also upheld the disallowance of unsecured loans for which no evidence was produced and the addition on account of deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any evidence to prove that the amounts in the seized Excel sheet belonged to the assessee. The Excel sheet was seized from a third-party premises and not confronted with the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share premium, finding that the valuation rules were not applicable at the time of share allotment and the valuation method used was not disputed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share premium, finding that the valuation rules were not applicable at the time of share allotment and the valuation method used was not disputed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the search and reassessment under Section 153A. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of enhancement of disallowance by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity to be heard, remitting the issue back.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the search and reassessment under Section 153A. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of enhancement of disallowance by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity to be heard, remitting the issue back.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any evidence to prove that the amounts in the seized Excel sheet belonged to the assessee. The Excel sheet was seized from a third-party premises and not confronted with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the search was justified as incriminating material was found. It upheld the disallowance of unsecured loans for which no evidence was produced and the addition of deemed dividend, dismissing the assessee's grounds.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted most of the required information earlier and the failure to respond was due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted most of the required information earlier and that the non-submission was due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of the search and reassessment under Section 153A. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of enhancement of disallowance by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity to be heard, remitting the issue back.
The Tribunal held that the search was justified as incriminating material was found. It also upheld the disallowance of unsecured loans for which no evidence was produced and the addition on account of deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any evidence to prove that the amounts in the seized Excel sheet belonged to the assessee. The Excel sheet was seized from a third-party premises and not confronted with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was genuine as the assessee paid interest through banking channels and deducted TDS. The disallowance of finance charges was also not sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share premium, finding that the valuation rules were not applicable at the time of share allotment and the valuation method used was not disputed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the enhancement of disallowance of interest by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity to the assessee violated principles of natural justice, remitting the issue back for fresh adjudication. Regarding Section 56(2)(viia), the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the allotment of shares at face value to a holding company by its subsidiary did not attract the provision due to no change in shareholding pattern and prior payment of share application money.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere surmises and conjectures without bringing on record any evidence to prove that the amounts in the seized Excel sheet belonged to the assessee. The Excel sheet was seized from a third-party premises and not confronted with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was genuine as the assessee paid interest through banking channels and deducted TDS. The disallowance of finance charges was also not sustained as the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's claim of genuine borrowings was supported by evidence of interest payments through banking channels and cash. The disallowance of agricultural income was also deemed baseless.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was genuine as the assessee paid interest through banking channels and deducted TDS. The disallowance of finance charges was also not sustained.
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employee contributions to PF/ESI are not available for deduction as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is sustained.
The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee commission should be charged at 0.50% on the utilized amount by the AE, following a High Court decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that it can only be triggered if exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to medical reasons and the pandemic. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the PCIT's view on the ineligibility of deduction for interest on bank deposits, found that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) had accepted the deduction after scrutiny. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the PCIT.
The Tribunal found that the AO had verified the assessee's books of account and bank statements, including cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the issue of liquidated damages was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It allowed certain expenses as deductions and remanded the issue of Section 54F exemption for verification, directing the AO to recompute interest.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's sales to its associated enterprise were at a lower price than both government-notified rates and prices charged to third parties. The miscellaneous expenses were disallowed as they were not wholly for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO has no power to change the valuation method adopted by the assessee and that the DCF method is a recognized and accepted method. The AO's rejection of the valuation solely because actual performance did not match projections was not sustainable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted proper inquiries regarding cash deposits and vehicle maintenance expenses. The Tribunal restored the AO's order, finding it neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
For returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date, the late fee under Section 234E is not leviable. However, for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the late fee is applicable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the PCIT for a fresh adjudication.