Loading ITAT cases…
149 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to exclude telecommunication expenses from both export and total turnover, citing High Court precedents. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of software expenditure being capital or revenue in nature for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding interest disallowance, holding that borrowed funds were not proven to be used for business purposes. However, the Tribunal allowed the entire firewood expenditure, finding no evidence of inflation or bogus claims. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for undervaluation of closing stock.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the amount was not consideration for goodwill as per the High Court's ruling. Therefore, the addition made by the AO as long-term capital gain on account of goodwill transfer was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed from 01.04.1981, as the property was acquired by the previous owner before that date. It also directed the AO to re-examine the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 based on the valuer's evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision on excluding reimbursement from both export and total turnover, following a High Court judgment. However, regarding transfer pricing issues, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration due to the application of a new filter to only selected comparables.
The Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be taxed in the impugned assessment year as possession of the land was not transferred to the builder before the sanction of the building plan. The JDA was also later cancelled.
The Tribunal restored the TDS issue to the AO for verification of tax payment by the deductee, allowing the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained cash credit and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection on notional interest.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation could not be sustained as the CIT's orders under Section 263, which formed the basis for the disallowance, had been quashed by the ITAT and upheld by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on ECB was within the range sanctioned by the RBI master circular. It further noted that the loan was to be repaid in Euros, and thus, EURIBOR + 500 basis points was a proper basis for determining the ALP, aligning with both Tribunal orders cited by the assessee and the Delhi High Court judgment cited by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be taxed when the transaction has not materialized and no income has accrued. Since possession was not transferred, the JDA was cancelled, and the matter went to arbitration, no capital gain arose to the assessee.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had already debited substantial investment expenses to the capital account, further disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. For AY 2008-09, as no such debits were made to the capital account, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment of Section 36(1)(iii), it is not necessary to prove that the debt has become bad. It is sufficient if the debts were written off in the assessee's books of accounts. The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court judgment in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that Section 11(6) of the IT Act is prospective. Therefore, the denial of depreciation was not upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, is the competent authority to issue the distance certificate. Based on the certificate showing the distance to be over 8 km, the agricultural land is not a capital asset, and no capital gain is chargeable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) needed reconsideration by the AO due to insufficient details regarding the source of funds for investments. However, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the expenditure was not solely for earning office facility charges but also for the assessee's computer business. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not warranted.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent and High Court decisions, held that depreciation is allowable for computing income of charitable institutions and does not amount to double benefit. However, it noted a subsequent amendment disallowing depreciation in such cases from AY 2015-16 onwards.
The Tribunal held that transactions between near relatives, especially for family purposes, do not attract Section 269SS and that there was a reasonable cause for accepting cash. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the valuation of Rs. 126 per sq. ft. was not appropriate, considering the property's size and prime location. It followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which adopted Rs. 200 per sq. ft. as the fair market value as of 01.04.1981.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's plea to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled by the Advanced Pricing Agreement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be supplied with the reasons for reopening the assessment to enable them to make submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the reasons and then adjudicate the appeal on merits if the reopening was found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be supplied with the reasons for reopening the assessment to enable them to make submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the reasons and then adjudicate the appeal on merits if the reopening was found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that subordinate authorities must follow jurisdictional High Court judgments until stayed. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal restored the issue of including two comparables to the TPO for re-examination, considering working capital adjustments. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the comparables list.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the NPV payment as revenue expenditure, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a related SLP. Other grounds raised by the assessee regarding foreign travel expenses, stamp duty, and lease rentals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the NPV payment as revenue expenditure, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a related SLP. Other grounds raised by the assessee regarding foreign travel expenses, stamp duty, and lease rentals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the NPV payment as revenue expenditure, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a related SLP. Other grounds raised by the assessee regarding foreign travel expenses, stamp duty, and lease rentals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be supplied with the reasons for reopening the assessment to enable them to make submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the reasons and then adjudicate the appeal on merits if the reopening was found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be supplied with the reasons for reopening the assessment to enable them to make submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the reasons and then adjudicate the appeal on merits if the reopening was found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) cannot be passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 143(2). Therefore, the assessment was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that subordinate authorities must follow jurisdictional High Court judgments until stayed. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal restored the issue of including two comparables to the TPO for re-examination, considering working capital adjustments. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the comparables list.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the transfer pricing grounds of appeal. It also allowed the ground related to Section 10A deduction, directing the AO to recompute it after reducing foreign travel expenses from total turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the computation of LTCG and the disallowance of certain expenses were correct. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal as lacking merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be supplied with the reasons for reopening the assessment to enable them to make submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the reasons and then adjudicate the appeal on merits if the reopening was found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the agreements were for the purchase of completed sites rather than works contracts. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194C.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that expenses incurred in foreign currency, which are attributable to export, should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deduction computation, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that expenses incurred in foreign currency, if excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction, must also be excluded from total turnover. This followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT v Tata Elxsi Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the NPV payment as revenue expenditure, following the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a related SLP. Other grounds raised by the assessee regarding foreign travel expenses, stamp duty, and lease rentals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that depreciation is allowable even if the asset's cost was treated as application of income. This ensures the preservation of the trust's corpus.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment, finding that the assessee had failed to disclose material facts. However, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of exemption under Section 54F and remanded the matter for re-examination of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not complied with the High Court's directions for fresh consideration of the Section 54 exemption claim. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the AO for a reasoned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 10B before setting off brought-forward losses and depreciation, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide reasons for reopening the assessment, despite a specific request, was a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also admitted grounds related to the correct cost of acquisition of land for consideration.
The Tribunal held that for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt in their books of accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has become irrecoverable.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not previously considered the issue of depreciation on these assets, and the assessee had not disclosed all material facts. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was upheld. However, due to insufficient information regarding the rules and regulations of the stock exchanges at the relevant times, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation. It followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in DIT (Exemption) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, which distinguished contrary views.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the carry forward of surplus application of income to subsequent years. It relied on previous decisions of co-ordinate benches that excess expenditure in earlier years can be adjusted against income in later years, constituting application of income in the later year.