Loading ITAT cases…
115 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not applicable if no exempt income is earned during the year. However, the assessee failed to prove that certain advances became irrecoverable during the year, leading to business loss. A small amount written off as telephone deposit was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal summarily without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rental deposit could not be allowed as a deduction in the current year as the civil suit was pending and the hope of recovery was not lost. The cash theft claim was rejected due to lack of evidence. The AO was directed to allow the rental deposit claim in the year the assessee finally loses hope of recovery.
The ITAT held that the appeal for AY 2009-10 was filed within time and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits. For AY 2010-11, the ITAT restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) to decide the exemption claim under Section 10(37) and related aspects. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The ITAT held that the appeal for AY 2009-10 was filed within time and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits. For AY 2010-11, the ITAT restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) to decide the exemption claim under Section 10(37) and related aspects. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that due diligence expenses for equity investment are capital in nature and not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. It also held that the conditions for carry forward of business losses under Section 79 were met. However, the amalgamating company was not considered an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 72A, thus denying the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and the appeal was squarely covered by Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not undertaken any genuine business activity and had no intention to restart, expenses claimed for maintaining its corporate structure were not allowable. Expenses claimed for earning income from other sources were also disallowed as they were not directly related to earning such income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the appeal for AY 2009-10 was filed within time and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits. For AY 2010-11, the ITAT restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) to decide the exemption claim under Section 10(37) and related aspects. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a developer or collaborator for its client, and the client owned all the output. Since the assessee did not own what it exported, it could not claim deduction under Section 10B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a developer or collaborator for its client, and the client owned all the output. Since the assessee did not own what it exported, it could not claim deduction under Section 10B.
The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional High Court had restored similar matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Citizen Co-operative Society Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional High Court had restored similar matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication in light of the Apex Court's judgment in Citizen Co-operative Society Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court regarding the eligibility of co-operative credit societies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the allocation of indirect expenditure to the power generation unit using the turnover key, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground. However, the issue of prior period expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the allocation of indirect expenditure to the power generation unit using the turnover key, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground. However, the issue of prior period expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the allocation of indirect expenditure to the power generation unit using the turnover key, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground. However, the issue of prior period expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the allocation of indirect expenditure to the power generation unit using the turnover key, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground. However, the issue of prior period expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had indeed parted with possession of the property as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's grounds related to the taxability of non-refundable deposits and the sources of investments.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had indeed parted with possession of the property as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's grounds related to the taxability of non-refundable deposits and the sources of investments.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had indeed parted with possession of the property as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's grounds related to the taxability of non-refundable deposits and the sources of investments.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of four companies from the list of comparables for the ITES segment, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, it upheld the inclusion of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited, rejecting the assessee's plea for exclusion based on related party transactions.
The Tribunal held that accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed at 15% of gross receipts, following previous decisions of co-ordinate benches and a Special Bench. Interest under Section 234B was upheld as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had indeed parted with possession of the property as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's grounds related to the taxability of non-refundable deposits and the sources of investments.
The Tribunal upheld the allocation of indirect expenditure to the power generation unit using the turnover key, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground. However, the issue of prior period expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the maintenance charges received for optional amenities provided to tenants and non-tenants should be treated as business income. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that expenses incurred in foreign currency, if excluded from export turnover, must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction computation, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the agreement was for the purchase of developed sites and did not involve a works contract. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had approved the Tribunal's order in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that management services were actually rendered by its Associated Enterprise. It also upheld the AO's decision to treat the ALP of management fees at Nil and rejected the bundling of transactions.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT instructions, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal rejected the revenue's ground regarding prior period expenses, finding no infirmity in the DRP's order. However, the ground concerning risk adjustment was restored to the DRP for a reasoned order. The assessee's cross-objection grounds were also restored to the DRP for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order on a non-existent entity is a void and incurable defect. The reference under Section 92CA(1) was also questioned for not satisfying the conditions.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to tax the interest income as 'income from other sources' but remanded the matter back to the AO to examine the allowability of expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act against this interest income.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) orders on several issues were cryptic. Consequently, the matters were restored to the DRP for fresh, reasoned decisions after providing opportunities to both parties. The Tribunal also upheld a High Court ruling regarding the reduction of expenses from turnover.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for recomputing the disallowance under Section 14A. This was to be done in light of the Delhi Special Bench decision in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., which stipulated that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) orders on several issues were cryptic. Consequently, the matters were restored to the DRP for fresh, reasoned decisions after providing opportunities to both parties. The Tribunal also upheld a High Court ruling regarding the reduction of expenses from turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the disallowance under Section 14A and the disallowances of interest expenditure. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision.