Loading ITAT cases…
37 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including providing furnished spaces, amenities, and extensive maintenance services, constituted a commercial venture. Therefore, the income derived from these activities should be taxed under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in reducing the disallowance from 20% to 10% of the speed money expenditure. This decision followed a previous ruling by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the penalty orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that allowing depreciation on capital assets, even if their cost was treated as application of income, does not amount to a double deduction. It followed previous tribunal and High Court decisions stating that depreciation is a necessary deduction for computing income in a normal commercial manner for charitable institutions.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from the realization of sale proceeds are an integral part of the business activity. Therefore, they should be treated as operating income for computing the ALP.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the disallowance, following a previous ITAT decision which stated that co-operative societies paying interest to members on deposits are exempt from TDS under Section 194A(3)(v). The pendency of a further appeal by the Revenue does not negate the Tribunal's prior decision.
The Tribunal held that computer peripherals like printers, scanners, and network equipment are an integral part of a computer and are eligible for depreciation at the higher rate of 60%. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision, expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's selection of certain comparable companies was flawed due to lack of opportunity for the assessee to present its case and insufficient documentation. The Tribunal also directed that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that exclusive private terraces should not be included in the built-up area for the purpose of Section 80-IB(10) compliance. This decision was based on various High Court and Tribunal rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not offering capital gains in the original return was bonafide, especially considering the debatable nature of tax incidence in joint development agreements and the subsequent voluntary disclosure. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's assumptions about the assessee's business were factually incorrect. The Tribunal also concurred that expenses deducted from export turnover should also be deducted from total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not established whether borrowed funds were used for investments yielding tax-free income or if indirect expenses were incurred for taxable income. Following a previous similar case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the assessee's income by changing the head of income without issuing a show cause notice as required by Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses, such as expat tax and interest on delayed TDS payment, should not be considered as services and thus excluded from the revenue and costs for comparability analysis. It also directed the exclusion of telecommunication and insurance charges from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction calculation.
The tribunal's decision remains as per the original order dated 18/07/2014. The corrigendum only rectifies errors in the cause title and paragraph 3 of the original order.
The tribunal's decision remains the same, but the assessment year and a specific date within the order have been corrected for accuracy. The substantive findings of the original order are not altered by this corrigendum.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside the assessment and remand the issue to the AO for verification. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for calling a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal found a discrepancy in the date of withdrawal claimed by the assessee. It directed the AO to verify the bank statement and bank letter submitted by the assessee to ascertain if the cash withdrawal from her account was the genuine source of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. is binding, even if a SLP is pending. Therefore, expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was already quashed by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order and the impugned CIT(Appeals) order lost their substratum.
The Tribunal held that a credit co-operative society is not hit by Section 80P(4) as it is not a co-operative bank. However, the issue of interest earned on bank deposits required further factual analysis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that there was no accrual of liability was incorrect. It also noted that certain legal provisions, like the deeming fiction in Section 194C(2), were not considered in the cited case laws.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014, which sets monetary limits for appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeal was dismissed.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the issue was resolved by the CIT(Appeals) through a rectification order. The Tribunal accepted the prayer.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, stating that the survey admission provided sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment. Regarding the TDS disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal held it applies only to amounts payable and outstanding as of March 31st, not those already paid.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure is an international transaction subject to Transfer Pricing provisions. However, the method of computing the adjustment needs to be re-examined by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to 'co-operative banks' as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and not to 'credit co-operative societies'. Therefore, the assessee society was eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that there was no accrual of liability was incorrect. It also noted that certain legal provisions, like the deeming fiction in Section 194C(2), were not considered in the cited case laws.
The Tribunal held that a credit co-operative society is not hit by Section 80P(4) as it is not a co-operative bank. However, the issue of interest earned on bank deposits required further factual analysis.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine certain comparable companies and to consider only the software development segment margin for Megasoft Ltd. It also directed the Assessing Officer to exclude specific foreign currency and communication expenses from both export and total turnover and to verify the claim for set-off of unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decision, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute interest under Section 220(2) by excluding the interest granted under Section 244A from the principal amount. The appeal on this issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. is binding, even if an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order to exclude expenses from both turnovers was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not precluded from raising objections regarding comparable companies for the first time before it. It also directed the TPO to recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) after excluding certain comparable companies.