Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the disallowance. The issues raised by the Revenue regarding Section 10B deductions were similar to those decided in favor of the assessee in a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation should be considered as part of operating income for comparability analysis in transfer pricing. It also noted that the DRP had sustained objections and deleted an addition related to the devolvement of SBLC.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation should be considered as part of operating income for comparability analysis in transfer pricing. It also noted that the DRP had sustained objections and deleted an addition related to the devolvement of SBLC.
The Tribunal held that the AO took a conscious view by accepting the purchases and sales as genuine after conducting inquiries. The PCIT cannot substitute his own view for that of the AO when multiple views are possible and the AO's view is legally sustainable. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the debit note related to a prior financial year and was necessary to reflect the true cost of gas purchased, thus not interfering with the tax-neutral claim.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the AO failed to record a finding that the assessee had failed to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, as required by the proviso to Section 147 when reassessment is initiated after four years. Consequently, the grounds on merit were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer res integra, citing decisions of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court. It affirmed that deficits from earlier years can be set off against subsequent years' income, as income is computed on commercial principles.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The withdrawal is in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that excess expenses incurred in earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years and considered as application of income in the year of adjustment, in line with Section 11 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties involved. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistent stand taken by the Revenue in similar transactions with other parties.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal as the assessee intends to settle the issue under the VSV scheme. The Revenue can seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV benefit.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The withdrawal is in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee represented its own money advanced in an earlier year and was returned due to non-materialization of land deals. The assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties involved.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider the documents already submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding cash credit, directing AO to verify bank withdrawals. For household expenses, the addition was partly allowed, estimating drawings at ₹15,000 per month.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction on payments to transporters and freight charges as PAN details were furnished as per Section 194C(6). For commission expenses, the AO's disallowance based on surmise and conjecture without proper inquiry was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim, especially when there is full disclosure and the claim is made in good faith supported by a tax audit report, does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was unjustified as it was a bona fide error.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated and continued against a non-existent entity (the amalgamating company) after amalgamation are void ab initio and not sustainable in law. The penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The assessees were granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications if any issues remained unresolved.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if the assessee is a shareholder in the company providing the loan. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in Planet Automotive Pvt. Ltd., the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the undisclosed income was offered in the return and accepted by the AO during assessment. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and the AO's presumption was mere suspicion.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and applications for withdrawal. In light of the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the requests for withdrawal were allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, granting the requests made by the parties. It also provided liberty to seek restoration of appeals if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed all the captioned appeals as withdrawn. It also granted liberty to the concerned parties to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.