Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a preceding year. It held that the assessee acted as a facilitator, receiving reimbursements and service charges, and the relationship of contractor and payee was not established, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that if the recipient of the payment has already discharged their tax liability on the income embedded in such payments, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the claim for cost of improvement was genuine and supported by evidence, and the assessee was a senior citizen who could not produce old bills. The discretion to impose penalty should have been exercised in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that items generated from ship breaking activity, which are reusable, do not fall under the definition of 'scrap' as per Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on these sales.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the CENVAT addition, finding it revenue neutral due to the assessee's accounting method. The addition under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The disallowance of training expenses was upheld due to lack of business justification and a non-binding MOU.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reason of a closed factory to be substantial. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the bonds were declared in the firm's books and the interest was accounted for by the firm, the investment in the partners' names was in substance the property of the firm. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54EC was admissible.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had no exempt income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow entertainment exemption and ESOP expenditure as capital receipts and business expenditure, respectively.
The Tribunal held that allowing depreciation on assets where the cost was treated as application of income is permissible. This is based on established High Court and Supreme Court precedents which consider normal depreciation as a legitimate deduction.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had no exempt income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow entertainment exemption and ESOP expenditure as capital receipts and business expenditure, respectively.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in book profit computation under Section 115JB is not justified when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds. It also held that debenture redemption reserve should be excluded from book profit computation.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance on depreciation for government securities, correcting a typographical error in the CIT(A)'s order. It restored the issue of provision on standard assets to the AO for de novo consideration based on Section 36(1)(viia). The claim for higher depreciation on furniture was dismissed.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition, finding no reason to deviate from the partial relief granted. The Tribunal noted that the remaining addition was based on seized records and the principle of preponderance of probability.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was indeed passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(1B) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) annulling the reassessment was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations linking expenses to revenue and that the CIT(A) had already granted partial relief. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the CIT(A)'s action.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a bonafide explanation for not disclosing the income in the original return, and the disclosure was made only after incriminating material was found during the survey. Therefore, the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical equipment and the claim for unapproved gratuity, following co-ordinate bench decisions. However, it dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenses and unexplained loans but allowed the disallowance for late payment of employee contributions.
The tribunal held that the Rs. 50 lakh cap on re-investment for Section 54EC deduction was introduced by the Finance Act, 2014, effective from April 1, 2015. Since the assessment year in question is 2011-12, this amendment was not applicable. The tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. C. Jaichander.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) when tax is paid under Section 115JB, even if a deduction is disallowed under normal provisions. The CBDT circular also supported this view.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical equipment and the claim for unapproved gratuity, following co-ordinate bench decisions. However, it dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenses and unexplained loans but allowed the disallowance for late payment of employee contributions.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of TP adjustments for interest on loans and corporate guarantees, following its own prior decisions and the principle of consistency. The foreign exchange fluctuation loss was also not interfered with, and the disallowance on late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESI was upheld.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal is hearing an appeal by the Revenue against this deletion.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.