Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that merely showing land as agricultural in revenue records or its location is not conclusive. The actual use for agricultural operations, both prior to purchase and intended future use, are crucial. Since this information was lacking, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the donee was an eligible institution. The withdrawal of approval happened later, and the assessee had no mechanism to verify the donee's genuineness at the time of donation. The donation was made through banking channels and confirmed as utilized for research.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESIC, citing the Gujarat High Court decision. It also upheld the disallowance of interest expenses as the assessee failed to deduct TDS and voluntarily agreed to the disallowance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the allocation of common expenses and interest/financial charges for Section 80IC deduction was correctly decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A), following a coordinate bench decision. The addition for late ESIC contribution was sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding management charges, relying on previous consistent decisions. For Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that interest-free advances were given for commercial expediency, as the assessee and group concerns were in similar businesses and paid taxes at MMR. Regarding TDS on hotel rent, the Tribunal found that the rooms were not taken on a regular basis as per CBDT circular, thus no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal filed by both the assessee and the revenue. Key issues included the disallowance of contributions to a society, transfer pricing adjustments, and the treatment of selling and distribution (S&D) functions and head office expenses.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. It also granted liberty to the assessee/Revenue to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the benefits of the scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT ought not to have initiated proceedings under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer had already made inquiries. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in a similar case for the preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as reasons were provided to the assessee. For one assessment year, a part of the addition was confirmed as it remained unexplained, while another part was remanded for verification. For another assessment year, an addition was deleted as the income was offered in a prior year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenditure claimed. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual expenditure of Rs. 91,535/-.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's oral request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.
The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees are at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the scheme for bona fide reasons.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees are at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the scheme for bona fide reasons.
The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding resolution of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to GTRC were for cost reimbursement of a joint research project and not royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 195 and consequently, the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) was also unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which restricted appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.