Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 2 of 3
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 held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes by not providing necessary details and evidence. The Tribunal also noted that secret commissions are considered prohibited by law under the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
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 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 held that while interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory, it cannot be enforced against the assessee to the extent of the TDS deducted but not paid by the employer, due to the bar under Section 205. However, interest on other taxes can still be levied.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by earlier orders of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court, which had approved the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the facts similar to a Supreme Court judgment where similar expenses claimed against interest income were disallowed. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the lower authorities' decision.
The Tribunal held that three comparables (L&T Infotech Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, and Mindtree Ltd) should be excluded from the list of comparables due to significant differences in turnover. The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling in the McAfee India P. Ltd case regarding turnover filters.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the cash transfer between branches. Regarding Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was restored to the AO to verify if the deductee included the income and paid tax, as the proviso to the section could allow for no disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in principle, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. However, the matter was restored to the AO for limited factual verification regarding the commencement of the undertaking's operations.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity and thus was not sustainable in law. The assessee was also found to be equally responsible for not bringing the complete facts to the Assessing Officer's notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits, possibly by calling for a remand report, rather than directing the AO to pass a rectification order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred in foreign currency for telecommunication charges should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. It also held that losses of a non-STPI unit cannot be set off against the proceeds of an STPI unit before allowing Section 10A deduction, as per the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below specified limits should not be filed.
The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed on gross receipts, not net income. This decision was based on previous Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that while the purchase of shares on the claimed date was not conclusively proven, the holding of shares after dematerialization could not be doubted. The exact date of dematerialization and the market price on that date were crucial for determining capital gains.
The Tribunal found that while the purchase of shares on the claimed date was not conclusively proven, the holding of shares after dematerialization could not be doubted. The exact date of dematerialization and the market price on that date were crucial for determining capital gains.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the DRP's direction to reduce foreign currency expenditure from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal found that while the purchase of shares on the claimed date was not conclusively proven, the holding of shares after dematerialization could not be doubted. The exact date of dematerialization and the market price on that date were crucial for determining capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed on gross receipts, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 24 Lakhs paid to Shri Rakesh Gupta due to lack of evidence of agreement and execution of sales. The issue of Rs. 9,60,000/- paid to Ms. Latha Gehani was remanded to the AO for fresh examination as the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.
The Tribunal held that the co-operative society, not being a co-operative bank carrying on exclusively banking business and lacking an RBI license, was eligible for the deduction under Section 80P. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts, as it is a necessary deduction for computing income in a commercial sense, and does not amount to a double deduction. It also held that the allowable accumulation of income should be calculated on gross receipts, not net receipts.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 24 Lakhs paid to Shri Rakesh Gupta due to lack of evidence of agreement and execution of sales. The issue of Rs. 9,60,000/- paid to Ms. Latha Gehani was remanded to the AO for fresh examination as the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked to disallow depreciation on capitalized expenditure, even if TDS was not deducted. The remedy for non-deduction of TDS lies under Sections 201 & 201A.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be computed independently for the eligible undertaking, without considering losses from other units. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to adopt TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) and reconsider the working capital adjustment. It also ordered the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. and Wipro Limited (BPO Divn.) from the set of comparables due to brand value and scale differences.
The Tribunal held that a 0% Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter is not practical and a tolerance range of 15% RPT is reasonable. It also noted that the CIT(A) modified the onsite revenue filter without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant factor for comparability and directed the exclusion of six companies from the comparable set based on a ten-times turnover tolerance range. It also directed the AO/TPO to give effect to the DRP's directions regarding foreign exchange fluctuation and recomputation of margins.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposit cannot be treated as the assessee's income as the account was joint. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider only 1/3rd of the peak credit in the joint account as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be computed independently for the eligible undertaking, without reference to other units. Losses of a non-STPI unit cannot be set off against the profits of an STPI unit before the Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined whether the recipient of the rent had offered the income to tax. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification of this fact and to decide afresh, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the TPO had cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's transfer pricing study, particularly concerning the reliability and correctness of the data used for computing the arm's length price. The grounds raised by the assessee were decided against them.
The Tribunal held that the DRP was not justified in applying a 0% Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter and reversed this finding. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to treat foreign exchange gain as operating income and dismissed grounds related to working capital adjustment and reduction of certain expenses from turnover.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 2(22)(e) cannot be sustained in Section 153A proceedings if no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessments were already concluded. The Tribunal also noted that the payments were made as per instructions from a director with a substantial credit balance, and the intention was not to avoid tax on dividends.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) should not be levied if the recipient has already paid taxes and filed its return, and if a refund is due to the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as application of income, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. However, the issue of loan repayment was remanded to the AO for verification of whether the loan proceeds were treated as income in the year of receipt.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to exclude certain comparables for marketing support services and allowed working capital adjustment. It also directed the AO/TPO to examine and allow foreign exchange losses arising from current year transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of a mistake in recording creditor names and outstanding amounts was not plausible. The substitution of entirely new creditors in a revised statement of affairs, not supported by the original audited books, was considered a fresh, unsubstantiated claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to non-service of the order. It held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person without bringing all legal heirs on record is invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the High Court's precedent, even though the Revenue had filed an appeal against it.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as application of income, accumulation should be on gross receipts, and excess application of income can be carried forward to subsequent years, following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) was intended to encourage domestic tourism and not foreign travel. The bank failed to demonstrate a bona fide belief that foreign travel expenses were eligible for exemption, thus it was liable for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue of apportionment of expenses between units requires detailed examination and remitted it to the AO/TPO. Regarding unabsorbed depreciation, the Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. but remitted the issue to the AO for re-examination due to lack of clarity on prior year set-offs.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to reduce telecommunication and insurance expenditure from export turnover and total turnover. It also directed the inclusion of two companies and exclusion of three others from the list of comparables based on functional differences and lack of segmental information.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of advance rental due to lack of documentary evidence and inconsistencies with prevailing practices. The explanation of refund with interest and compensation was also found contrary to normal practice.
The Tribunal held that the building fund collected from students, where 60% was treated as general donation and 40% utilized for capital expenditure, was not a voluntary contribution for a specific purpose eligible for exemption. However, for exemption under Section 10(23C), each educational institution should be considered separately, and depreciation claims need fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide evidence for transportation expenses. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify diesel expenses from the supplier's records and fixed charges by examining the drivers.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not considered the relevant records, including the ledger accounts. It appeared to be a running account for business expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of the company.