Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT had made a categorical finding that the assessee, being a financing and investment company, incurred administrative expenses related to earning both interest and dividend income. The Tribunal found that the AO had not made any enquiry regarding disallowance under section 14A, making the assessment order erroneous and subject to revision.
The Tribunal held that if the notice for reopening is valid, the AO can assess any other income that has escaped assessment and comes to his notice during the proceedings. The Tribunal also deleted an addition made on account of collections for DDCA, finding the diary entries to be self-explanatory. Further, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow set-off of unexplained hand loan receipts against unexplained repayments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not examined the daily sales register submitted by the assessee, which showed no difference in total sales. Therefore, the matter was set aside for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 54/54F should have been examined if capital gains were to be charged. Since this aspect was not adjudicated by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the deductor's mistake. If TDS was deducted and paid to the government, credit should be given to the assessee, as clarified by CBDT Instruction No. 5/2013.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs to establish that the expenditure is revenue in nature, not capital. Since no material was readily available to prove this, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication expenses should be reduced from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal remanded issues concerning the standard deduction and exclusion of comparables back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the business asset was let out after discontinuing the business activity, the rental income could not be treated as income from house property. However, it also could not be accepted as business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding PF/ESI contributions, finding it covered by a jurisdictional High Court judgment. For depreciation on intangibles, the Tribunal followed its own prior ruling in the assessee's case and allowed the claim.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the crucial facts that both the assessee and NEKRTC are registered under Section 12A, and that the deposit was a small percentage of NEKRTC's capital. Therefore, the matter was remanded for proper verification and decision.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication expenses should be reduced from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal remanded issues concerning the standard deduction and exclusion of comparables back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly applied Section 14A, but remanded the issue of comparable company selection for further examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding telecommunication expenses, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in a similar case, which allowed deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding PF/ESI contributions, finding it covered by a jurisdictional High Court judgment. For depreciation on intangibles, the Tribunal followed its own prior ruling in the assessee's case and allowed the claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules by admitting fresh evidence without confronting it to the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that freight expenses should not be reduced from export turnover and total turnover for Section 10B deduction. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable for the assessment year in question, remanding the issue for re-computation. For transfer pricing, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked for deposits in a bank account as a bank passbook is not considered 'books of accounts' maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided plausible explanations for the deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of companies based on a turnover filter, stating it was appropriate. However, it set aside the DRP's direction for risk adjustment due to the assessee's failure to provide quantification details. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the exclusion of certain expenses from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned. For other years, the issue of whether investments were made from personal or borrowed funds required further examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided significant evidence explaining the business need for investing borrowed funds in the partnership firm. The matter was therefore set aside for a fresh adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned. For other years, the issue of whether investments were made from personal or borrowed funds required further examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee acquired rights to the property prior to three years from the sale date, even if construction was not complete. Therefore, the capital gain was long-term.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The CIT(A) had deleted the proportionate indirect interest disallowance as share capital exceeded investments and restricted the other disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that taking a loan in cash from a close relative for urgent needs constitutes a reasonable cause for not adhering to Section 269SS. Consequently, no penalty is leviable under Section 271D and 271E.
The Tribunal directed the DRP to re-examine foreign exchange gains/losses pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. It disallowed risk adjustment due to the assessee's failure to provide detailed working, and remanded the issue of salary apportionment for employees seconded from the AE back to the DRP.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the comparability of ICRA Online Ltd. and to verify its Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter. It also directed the exclusion of three other comparables based on turnover difference.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to afford a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) should have considered the written submissions filed as per the notice, but instead dismissed the appeal summarily.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A computation, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to reconsider the comparability analysis with specific filters.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income, the provisions of Section 14A cannot be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was wrongly made.
The Tribunal held that the JDA was signed in individual capacity and there was no evidence of HUF existence or that the JDA was executed on behalf of the HUF. However, the claim for deduction under Section 54F was rejected on technical grounds by the CIT(A) without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that if the notice for reopening is valid, the AO can assess any other income that has escaped assessment and comes to his notice during the proceedings. The Tribunal also deleted an addition made on account of collections for DDCA, finding the diary entries to be self-explanatory. Further, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow set-off of unexplained hand loan receipts against unexplained repayments.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if there are cash credits in the assessee's books of accounts. A bank passbook is not considered the assessee's books of accounts for the purpose of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that slight variations in figures between the assessee's books and creditor confirmations do not warrant disbelieving the credits, especially when the assessee has discharged its onus. The AO and CIT(A) relied on incorrect figures in the remand report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting its case due to non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the land was non-agricultural at the time of sale, as evidenced by its location, price, and lack of proof of actual agricultural activity. The Tribunal also confirmed that the consideration paid to the sons was not valid as they had no ownership rights in the property.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the penalty order under Section 271FA should have been filed before the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(1)(j)(B), not directly before the ITAT. Therefore, the ITAT lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence from the assessee without affording the AO an opportunity to examine it or cross-examine witnesses. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The tribunal held that excess application of income from earlier years can be carried forward and set off against subsequent years' income. It also held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts, even if their cost was claimed as application of income, as this does not amount to double deduction.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to apply the ALP of 117.50% for remaining international transactions after MAP resolutions for USA and Canada. The Section 10A deduction was denied based on previous Tribunal orders regarding the use of old machinery, and the issue of setting off losses against Section 10A profits was remanded for recomputation as per Apex Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance, as the jurisdictional High Court had ruled that belatedly remitted PF/ESI contributions are allowable as deductions if paid by the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list and the inclusion of others based on previous rulings. It remanded the issue of reimbursement of expenses for further examination regarding profit element and directed the AO/TPO to examine foreign exchange loss on revenue items. The Tribunal also held that risk adjustment is not permissible and that corporate tax deductions under Section 10A/10B are covered in favour of the assessee by a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the land was consistently treated as stock-in-trade in previous years and the assessee's claim of conversion to a capital asset was factually incorrect. The CIT's order under Section 263 was found to be valid.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's grounds related to Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) and cost-free services for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh decision. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the exclusion of telecommunication charges from total turnover, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the affidavits and other evidence. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals) order, which had rightly adjudicated the issues in detail. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to exclude foreign currency expenditure from total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, remanding the issue of Wrench product development expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication based on establishing a direct nexus.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to apply the ALP of 117.50% for remaining international transactions after MAP resolutions for USA and Canada. The Section 10A deduction was denied based on previous Tribunal orders regarding the use of old machinery, and the issue of setting off losses against Section 10A profits was remanded for recomputation as per Apex Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that cash payments were necessitated by business expediency on bank-closed days. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for the call centre segment, the CUP method was inappropriate due to incomplete comparable data, and TNMM should be used for fresh adjudication. For the shared services segment, several comparables were rejected, requiring a de novo selection and ALP determination. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 10A deduction, allowing it before setting off losses.
The Tribunal found that while the purchase transaction date was not conclusively proven, the dematerialization of shares and their reflection in the demat account could not be doubted. The exact date of dematerialization and the market price on that date were crucial for determining capital gains.