Loading ITAT cases…
1,198 tribunal orders from the Bangalore bench in 2017.
Showing 40 of 1,198 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the payment for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure, citing Supreme Court judgments. It also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of Keyman policy premium as deduction in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that accumulation of income for charitable trusts should be calculated on gross receipts, not net income, following a Supreme Court decision. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that accumulation of income for charitable trusts should be calculated on gross receipts, not net income, following a Supreme Court decision. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the accumulation of income under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed as claimed by the assessee at 15% of gross receipts. The issue regarding capital expenditure was set aside to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the payment for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure, citing Supreme Court judgments. It also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of Keyman policy premium as deduction in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not produced material rebutting the assessee's claim or showing that R&D was not relevant to the business. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded back to the AO for a decision after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payment for acquiring mining rights is capital in nature, relying on Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, it cannot be allowed as a deduction, even on a staggered basis. The assessee's cross-objections regarding keyman insurance premium were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the payment for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure, citing Supreme Court judgments. It also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of Keyman policy premium as deduction in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the notes provided by the assessee regarding the mode of transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's claims and the reasonable cause for any cash transactions.
The Tribunal found conflicting views in its own previous orders and the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute. Considering the amendment in Rule 3 of IT Rules and the need for fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found the CIT's action unreasonable. It held that the CIT should have afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee and directed the CIT to re-examine the applications, making necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was not allowable as it was incurred outside India and there was no evidence to show how it benefited the business operations of the Japan branch. Mere reliance on judicial decisions without a factual foundation was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the goods declared under the VDIS Scheme were the same as those sold, citing discrepancies in quantities and unexplained conversion of jewellery into bullion. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issue of whether the notice under Section 143(2) was time-barred. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide this technical issue first. If the notice is found to be time-barred, the assessment order would be quashed; otherwise, the merits would be decided afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case directed verification of whether credit facilities were extended to outsiders. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that in the husband's case, under identical circumstances, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination of the opening capital. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the notes provided by the assessee regarding the mode of transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's claims and the reasonable cause for any cash transactions.
The Tribunal found that the TPO and DRP had not properly examined the assessee's functional profile and the nature of its services. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the TPO for a fresh examination of the functional profile and selection of appropriate comparables.
The Tribunal found conflicting views in its own previous orders and the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute. Considering the amendment in Rule 3 of IT Rules and the need for fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits made for business exigencies should be treated as business income. It further ruled that Section 115JB is not applicable to entities not required to prepare accounts as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds due to a MAP resolution. The disallowance of warranty provision was upheld as arbitrary, and the disallowance of overhead allocation for WIP valuation was dismissed as not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding software expenses was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the goods declared under the VDIS Scheme were the same as those sold, citing discrepancies in quantities and unexplained conversion of jewellery into bullion. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill, following the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Smiffs Security Ltd. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds due to a MAP resolution. The disallowance of warranty provision was upheld as arbitrary, and the disallowance of overhead allocation for WIP valuation was dismissed as not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding software expenses was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This is in line with established judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Cheminvest Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the detailed explanations and cash book provided by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was previously claimed as application of income. It also held that excess expenditure can be carried forward and set off against future income.
The Tribunal found conflicting views in its own previous orders and the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute. Considering the amendment in Rule 3 of IT Rules and the need for fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that if a liability crystallizes in a later year, the deduction is allowable in that year. The matter was restored to the AO to verify if the liability to pass on the discount crystallized in the present year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without dealing with the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, PAN, and ITRVs for sundry creditors, and that the department had not made sufficient efforts to examine the source of credits. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had confirmed an addition without giving a specific finding against the assessee's explanation for purchases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without dealing with the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without dealing with the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without dealing with the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court orders mandating the retention of 15% of sale proceeds and payment of compensation were passed after the relevant assessment year. Therefore, these amounts did not accrue to the assessee in the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of shareholding percentage of Shri Jasmer Puri as on the date of advance requires verification. It also held that capital reserves cannot be considered part of accumulated profits for deemed dividend calculation.
The Tribunal held that the issue of shareholding percentage of Shri Jasmer Puri as on the date of advance requires verification. It also held that capital reserves cannot be considered part of accumulated profits for deemed dividend calculation.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision on belated PF/ESI contributions. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections regarding Section 14A disallowance, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10AA. It also ruled that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS on payments to non-resident parties and that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10AA. It also ruled that the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS on payments to non-resident parties and that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified.