Loading ITAT cases…
25 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 80AC, which disallowed deductions for belated returns, was applicable from AY 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they were not given sufficient opportunity by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for hearing and submission of evidence.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the information provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the cash deposits and to afford the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents constituted incriminating material and upheld the invocation of Section 153C. It further confirmed the addition of cash deposits as income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for their sources.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents constituted incriminating material and upheld the invocation of Section 153C. It further confirmed the addition of cash deposits as income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for their sources.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents constituted incriminating material and upheld the invocation of Section 153C. It further confirmed the addition of cash deposits as income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for their sources.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents constituted incriminating material and upheld the invocation of Section 153C. It further confirmed the addition of cash deposits as income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for their sources.
The Tribunal held that the interest payment was serviced and the bank issued a certificate, thus deleting the addition under Section 43B. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the addition under Section 69A was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and deleted it.
The Tribunal held that the interest rate charged by the assessee on unsecured NCDs was at Arm's Length. It followed precedents stating that unsecured loans carry higher risk and thus higher interest rates, and that the relationship between holding/subsidiary companies is not a criterion for determining secured/unsecured debt.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents constituted incriminating material and upheld the invocation of Section 153C. It further confirmed the addition of cash deposits as income, as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for their sources.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, only the profit element from the unaccounted purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 8% of the sales.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the PCIT. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that prima facie, bank statements indicated some transactions were indeed through banking channels. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of all details and a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that prima facie, bank statements indicated some transactions were indeed through banking channels. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of all details and a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding justifiable cause. It then directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the assessee's profit at 4% instead of the previously estimated 5% on purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a foreign company and an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15) of the Act. It was an admitted fact that the AO did not pass a draft assessment order before issuing the final assessment order. The Tribunal found that the law, as settled by various High Court judgments, including the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Zuari Cement Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court), and the Delhi High Court in Sinogas Management PTE Ltd, clearly states that failure to adhere to the mandatory requirement of Section 144C(1) and pass a draft assessment order vitiates the final assessment order, rendering it without jurisdiction, null and void. The Tribunal distinguished the case relied upon by the revenue, Volex Interconnect (India) (P.) Ltd, as a Single Judge decision and noted that the facts were different. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(1), making it null and void. Consequently, the legal ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed. The original grounds of appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal acknowledged a mistake in its previous order regarding the treatment of commission expenditure. It held that since the assessee was not involved in obtaining accommodation entries, the addition made under Section 69C for commission expenditure should be deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged a mistake in its previous order regarding the treatment of commission expenditure. It held that since the assessee was not involved in obtaining accommodation entries, the addition made under Section 69C for commission expenditure should be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the belated appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time to substantiate its claims before the PCIT. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's medical condition and the need for natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee will be given another opportunity to present their case and submit additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) as it was formed by scheduled caste drivers for collective disposal of their labour, and all drivers engaged were members of the society. The decisions relied upon by the revenue authorities were found not applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in-limine because the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal and rectify the defects. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health. It was held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging that the CIT(A) had no option but to pass an ex-parte order, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.