Loading ITAT cases…
119 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the issue in the appeal was whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application for registration on the ground of non-compliance with the notice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative demonstrated that all notices were complied with, though belatedly. Therefore, the Tribunal considered it a fit case to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. For the appeal concerning Section 80G approval, the Tribunal, for parity of reasoning, also remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that where compliance with notices is demonstrated, even if belated, and the assessee seeks a fresh consideration, remanding the matter to the lower authority is appropriate for a fresh examination of the application on merits. The operative direction was to remand the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue to the DRP for a speaking order. For corporate tax matters, it directed the AO to reduce expenses from total turnover as well and allowed deduction under Section 10A before setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal found that the AO rejected the assessee's additional evidence without giving a proper opportunity for explanation. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to decide afresh after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the payment was not for business exigency as per the JDA, which clearly stated the owner was responsible for such expenses. The CIT(A)'s order was reversed as it failed to consider these crucial JDA clauses.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR of the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the issue in the appeal was whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application for registration on the ground of non-compliance with the notice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative demonstrated that all notices were complied with, though belatedly. Therefore, the Tribunal considered it a fit case to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. For the appeal concerning Section 80G approval, the Tribunal, for parity of reasoning, also remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that where compliance with notices is demonstrated, even if belated, and the assessee seeks a fresh consideration, remanding the matter to the lower authority is appropriate for a fresh examination of the application on merits. The operative direction was to remand the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that allowing depreciation as an application of income is permissible and does not amount to double deduction. It further clarified that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation as application of income, is prospective and applicable from April 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that since the payments were made within the grace period and well before the due date for filing the return, no disallowance could be made. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it was based on the established judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, based on information received from another tax authority regarding the sale of property and a DVO's report. The reopening was therefore justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not clearly indicated the opportunities afforded and had not examined the assessee's claim properly. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue for the current assessment year was decided by following the directions for the previous year. For the prior year, the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, taking into account the assessee's replies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the credit balance by providing supporting evidence. The explanation that the difference arose from the previous year was not substantiated with documents.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined whether the cash payments were related to expenses debited to the P&L account and the nature of the outstanding TDS liability. Therefore, both issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are taxable in the current year based on the guidance value of the land on the JDA date, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. The Section 54 exemption claim was set aside to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the AO had issued notices, the assessee, having meager income, should be given one more opportunity to establish reasonable cause for accepting cash loans under Section 273B. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that cash credits from the assessee's wife and son were not unexplained as they had substantial declared income. However, the issue of cash credit from the daughter was restored to the AO to determine if she was a minor and if any interest income was taxable in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided letters from the deductor, there was no concrete evidence of TDS deduction. Citing jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for verification of actual TDS deduction.
The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs is not taxable if the principal is unrecoverable, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. It also ruled that amounts received from a government loan waiver scheme, where the bank acted as an intermediary, do not constitute income for the bank. The issue of provision for bad debts was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that tax includes surcharge and cess, and therefore, MAT credit utilization should be calculated based on the difference between tax liabilities inclusive of surcharge and cess under both normal provisions and Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that no PE was constituted in India as the duration of stay was less than 182 days, considering only solar days. It further held that FTS is not taxable in India under Article 22(1) of the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA, as it is taxable only in the state of residence. However, the classification of the receipt as royalty or FTS was not decided due to lack of details and was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that MAT credit should include surcharge and education cess, following the decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts. The AO was directed to recompute accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on assets where the cost was already claimed as application of income, following previous tribunal orders. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing set-off of excess expenditure/application against future income, again following jurisdictional ITAT orders.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient for the assessee to write off bad debts in their books of accounts. The Assessing Officer's objection that no effective steps were taken to recover the debts was not justified.
The Tribunal followed its earlier order, allowing deduction for scrap sales but disallowing it for spare parts sales. The transfer pricing matter was restored to the AO/TPO to recalculate the Arm's Length Price (ALP) using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain companies from the comparables list based on functional dissimilarity and abnormal profits/losses. It also followed previous tribunal rulings regarding the comparability of specific companies in marketing support services.
The Tribunal held that the turnover filter alone is not a sufficient basis for excluding comparable companies in transfer pricing analysis and restored the issue for re-examination. It also directed re-examination of bad debts as operating expenses and modified the order regarding finance lease payments, allowing the interest component as revenue expenditure and depreciation on the remaining part.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts depreciation for entities claiming exemption under Section 11, is prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts depreciation for entities claiming exemption under Section 11, is prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had not passed a reasoned order and had not applied its mind to the assessee's contentions regarding the exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies. Therefore, the DRP's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that excess application of income in earlier years can be adjusted against the income of subsequent years, and such adjustment amounts to application of income in the subsequent year. The revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to KHB and RITES were not in the nature of contract payments under Section 194C, but rather for professional and technical services. The matter was set aside to re-compute tax liability under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) considered additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to rebut, violating Rule 46A and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts depreciation for entities claiming exemption under Section 11, is prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in similar cases for earlier assessment years, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the turnover filter should not be applied for determining the ALP unless it's shown to affect profitability. It also directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. from the comparables list due to functional dissimilarity and brand value.
The Tribunal held that as per the unamended provisions of Section 54EC, the assessee is entitled to full exemption of Rs. 1 crore if investments are made in specified bonds, with Rs. 50 lakhs in each of two financial years, within the 6-month period from the sale of the property.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 323 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation to be satisfactory and not malafide. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to KHB and RITES were not in the nature of contract payments under Section 194C, but rather for professional and technical services. The matter was set aside to re-compute tax liability under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication and travelling expenses in foreign currency, when reduced from export turnover, should also be reduced from total turnover for computing Section 10A deduction. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to KHB and RITES were not in the nature of contract payments under Section 194C, but rather for professional and technical services. The matter was set aside to re-compute tax liability under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that the turnover filter alone is not a sufficient basis for excluding comparable companies in transfer pricing analysis and restored the issue for re-examination. It also directed re-examination of bad debts as operating expenses and modified the order regarding finance lease payments, allowing the interest component as revenue expenditure and depreciation on the remaining part.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in foreign currency towards telecommunication and other charges should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts depreciation for entities claiming exemption under Section 11, is prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal condoned the 235-day delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following its own precedent in similar cases involving the same assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the turnover filter should not be applied for determining the ALP unless it's shown to affect profitability. It also directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. from the comparables list due to functional dissimilarity and brand value.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had estimated the cost of land and building without following the prescribed procedure under the Act. Therefore, their estimations were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation when the entire cost is claimed as application of income, is prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The High Court had ruled that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with depreciation for entities claiming exemption under Section 11, was prospective from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.