Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if there is an actual receipt of income which does not form part of the total income. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits made from share capital/application money, which was temporarily parked during the period of setting up the plant, is in the nature of a capital receipt. This interest should be used to reduce the capital cost of the project and is not taxable as income.
The Tribunal held that printers, when used as an integral part of the computer system as accessories and peripherals, are eligible for depreciation at 60%. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the computation of deduction under Section 10A. It ruled that expenses incurred in foreign exchange should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover, and that brought forward losses should not be set off before calculating the Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence without confronting it to the AO, which violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted substantial evidence, including an amended trust deed and proof of activities, which the CIT(Exemptions) failed to consider. Therefore, the CIT(Exemptions)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments to pigmy deposit collectors should be treated as salary, not commission, based on CBDT circulars. Therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194H was not justified.
The Tribunal, after reviewing the CIT(E)'s order and noting the absence of the assessee, found no error in the CIT(E)'s decision. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on all three issues. The CIT(A) had followed various judgments and tribunal orders in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for the cash repayment, considering it was a single instance of non-compliance and not a regular occurrence. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271E was not imposable as per Section 273B.
The Tribunal restored the Section 10A issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of factual aspects regarding the STPI unit. The Tribunal partly allowed the cross-objection concerning Section 14A, remanding it to the AO for recalculation of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that income from NPA should be assessed on a cash basis, meaning it is recognized only when actually received. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Canfin Homes Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied exemption under Section 54 due to delays in construction caused by circumstances beyond their control. The exemption is to be allowed to the extent of actual investment made in the new property.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. It followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jains Co-operative Bank Ltd., which held that taxing revenue written back from excess provisions is unwarranted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission that the issues in the appeals had been resolved through the MAP.
The Tribunal held that since the issues were resolved through MAP, the appeals were dismissed. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if any grievance remained after the MAP resolution.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission that the issues in the appeals had been resolved through the MAP.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission that the issues in the appeals had been resolved through the MAP.
The Tribunal held that the CIT ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issues were debatable and decided in favor of the assessee by co-ordinate benches. The Assessing Officer had adopted a possible view, and revising the order would not lead to a different conclusion.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of provision for interest payable to the Customs Department was covered by previous decisions against the assessee. The disallowance of interest paid to MSMEs was upheld due to specific provisions in the MSMED Act prohibiting such deductions.
For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal, especially since the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed when the tax payable under normal provisions was less than that under Section 115JB, as the amended Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court judgment in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., which was agreed upon by both parties. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee. Presuming the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the legal aspect that TDS was not required on interest paid to members by a co-operative bank before June 1, 2015. However, it remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the factual aspect of whether the recipients of interest were indeed 'members' as per the definition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation as an application of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2014, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the advance received by the assessee from NIPL was indeed a loan and not an advance for property purchase, as claimed. The assessee's arguments and documentation were found to be self-serving and lacked substantiation.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation to the TPO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. The ground related to miscellaneous income was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The claim for risk adjustment was dismissed for lack of details, while working capital adjustment was remanded for re-computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. It held that a cooperative society not holding a banking license from the RBI and providing credit facilities only to its members is not a 'cooperative bank' for the purpose of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Canfin Homes Ltd. The Tribunal held that interest accruing on assets classified as NPA cannot be deemed income until actually received.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 3% of turnover to be unsustainable. It directed the Assessing Officer to disallow Rs. 5 lakhs out of loading and unloading charges for non-verifiable expenses, increasing the returned income to that extent.
The Tribunal found that the documents were indeed produced for the first time before the CIT(A) and Rule 46A(4) was not applicable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) were defective as they did not specify the nature of the default, making them invalid. For Section 271F, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing returns on time due to its belief of being a division of another entity.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeals were dismissed as not admitted.
The Tribunal found significant errors in the CIT(Appeals)'s order, including improper application of methods and comparables, and procedural lapses. The TPO's order was also found to lack proper reasoning for rejecting the assessee's method.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of provision for NPAs, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. However, the issue of bank reconciliation provisions was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unaccounted cash receipts as 'on money' for the sale of flats. The assessee's argument that only the net profit should be taxed was rejected due to lack of evidence of incurred expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the payment for software license usage is royalty and liable for TDS. However, it also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) increases business profits, which are eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore for the gifted property, stating that even if the gift was invalid, the assessee was not the owner and the addition should not be made in his hands. The Tribunal restored the matters concerning cash credits and unsecured loans to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee. Presuming the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeals were dismissed as not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeals were dismissed as not admitted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. It held that a cooperative society not holding a banking license from the RBI and providing credit facilities only to its members is not a 'cooperative bank' for the purpose of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. It held that a cooperative society not holding a banking license from the RBI and providing credit facilities only to its members is not a 'cooperative bank' for the purpose of Section 80P(4).
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unaccounted cash receipts as 'on money' for the sale of flats. The assessee's argument that only the net profit should be taxed was rejected due to lack of evidence of incurred expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unaccounted cash receipts as 'on money' for the sale of flats. The assessee's argument that only the net profit should be taxed was rejected due to lack of evidence of incurred expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unaccounted cash receipts as 'on money' for the sale of flats. The assessee's argument that only the net profit should be taxed was rejected due to lack of evidence of incurred expenditure.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the legal aspect that TDS was not required on interest paid to members by a co-operative bank before June 1, 2015. However, it remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the factual aspect of whether the recipients of interest were indeed 'members' as per the definition.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the legal aspect that TDS was not required on interest paid to members by a co-operative bank before June 1, 2015. However, it remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the factual aspect of whether the recipients of interest were indeed 'members' as per the definition.