Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to its subsidiary were indeed Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and that the assessee was liable for not deducting tax at source. The Tribunal distinguished the case from others where payments were considered business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the ITO was not valid due to exceeding the prescribed income limit for his jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. However, it was considered irregular rather than illegal, necessitating a fresh assessment by a competent officer.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, it can be presumed that any advances or investments were made from these funds, even if the company also has borrowed funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders as the Revenue could not demonstrate that the favorable High Court judgments were overturned or stayed by the Supreme Court. No factual distinctions were presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee to submit translated documents and then pass a fresh reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable. This was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which requires specific mention of the charge for penalty.
The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the CIT(A) to first decide the technical aspect regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153C. If the assessee fails on this technical ground, the CIT(A) should then decide the issue on merit.
The tribunal held that since the assessee admitted there was no merit in the condonation of delay, the appeals before the CIT(A) were not admissible. Consequently, the appeals filed before the tribunal were also dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders, finding no infirmity in the addition made. The assessee failed to demonstrate that other entities in the same business had comparable net profit rates or that their past declared rates were accepted in scrutiny assessments.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(38) was correctly claimed as shares were held for over 12 months, dematerialized, sold through a recognized stock exchange, and payments were received through banking channels. The Tribunal followed a precedent where similar additions based on a broker's statement were deleted.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which held that excess expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years and considered as application of income. Therefore, the departmental appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on consignment sales due to lack of evidence, remanded the issue of Sooji bag conversion to the AO for further verification, and deleted the addition on subsidy as it was shown under Reserve & Surplus.
The Tribunal held that if interest-free advances are given for business expediency, the interest on borrowings for such advances cannot be disallowed. All the advances in question were considered to be on account of business expediency.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable as the assessee did not earn any exempt income, following the Delhi High Court judgment in Cheminvest Ltd. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to examine the allowability of interest expenses under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 57(iii).
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation available as on 1st April 2002 should be dealt with under the amended provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to differ.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory period for completion of assessment. It also found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate on the grounds related to non-service of notices and the validity of the partition.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are attracted in the year the JDA was entered into, as per the decision in CIT vs Dayalu. However, the computation of capital gains was set aside to the AO for recalculation based on the guidance value of the land as consideration.
The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the loan taken and the investment in mutual funds, making the explanation of the funds lying idle due to business delays unfounded. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.
The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds of appeal to be misconceived. The TPO was directed to reconsider the percentage of risk adjustments in accordance with the law, following previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the resolution of the transfer pricing issues via the MAP. The revenue's grounds related to transfer pricing were also dismissed as infructuous following the MAP order. The remaining ground of the revenue regarding the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover was dismissed based on High Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision regarding Section 10A deduction, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's ruling is binding. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of several companies from the list of comparables used by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(Appeals) properly examined the issue of unconfirmed creditors, despite the revision order directing a fresh assessment. Regarding the interest income difference, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of netting off interest expenses was not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the contract was exclusively for labour charges, and the payment for materials was a reimbursement. Since the material invoices were in the assessee's name and no profit element was involved for the contractor, Section 194C was not applicable, and the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had no objection to the revenue's appeal being allowed. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issues to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order. It rejected the claim for deduction of provisions for interest payable to excise and sales tax departments. The treatment of trademark expenditure was decided based on previous year's orders.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to adopt the income as per MAP settlement if one existed, otherwise, to adopt the income as per the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the payment of compensation was a sham and a device to avoid tax, as the tenant, an associated enterprise, continued to occupy the property and did not offer the compensation for tax. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the resolution of the transfer pricing issues via the MAP. The revenue's grounds related to transfer pricing were also dismissed as infructuous following the MAP order. The remaining ground of the revenue regarding the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover was dismissed based on High Court precedent.