Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable to the assessee, reversing the lower authorities' denial of exemption. However, it remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to verify the application of income as per Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and applied his mind to the issues. The CIT merely substituted his own view for that of the Assessing Officer, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision for AY 2009-10, which had remanded the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure to the AO for fresh verification. The AO was directed to decide the grounds raised in the present appeals in light of the directions given in the prior ruling.
The Tribunal held that the classification of income (house property vs. business) and the set-off of losses depend on the assessee's Memorandum of Association and the nature of its business. The ad-hoc disallowance of interest expenditure was also found to be without proper reasoning.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) after carefully examining it. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the assets in the hands of the erstwhile firm, not on the revalued cost to the succeeding company. This decision followed previous pronouncements by the Tribunal on identical issues for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the carry forward of excess expenditure for adjustment against income of subsequent years is permissible for charitable trusts. This is based on various judicial precedents that allow such adjustments as application of income in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, finding that the Assessing Officer had 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment and had followed the necessary procedures. The Tribunal also addressed the retrospective applicability of amendments to Section 68, referencing a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the assets in the hands of the erstwhile firm, not on the revalued cost to the succeeding company. This decision followed previous pronouncements by the Tribunal on identical issues for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal on the issue of turnover being a relevant criteria for selecting comparables. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal remitted the issue of comparability of companies back to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that telecommunication expenses should be reduced from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. It also directed the TPO to re-adjudicate the comparability of certain entities for software development services and excluded one comparable for marketing support services.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order lacked proper inquiry on the specific issues raised by the CIT. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside on those issues, and the AO was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal on the issue of turnover being a relevant criteria for selecting comparables. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal remitted the issue of comparability of companies back to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparable companies by the TPO, particularly those with different financial year endings and significant 'other income' without proper segmental data. The Tribunal found the TPO's application of filters to be appropriate in determining the arm's length price.
The Tribunal held that the source of funds for the mutual fund investments was explained by the bank account statement, thus deleting the addition. Similarly, the addition for short-term capital gains was deleted as the revenue failed to prove the source of investment originated from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue given the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the agreements were for the purchase of sites and not composite works contracts. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and the circular was squarely applicable. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission payments, holding that the assessee failed to prove that services were actually rendered by the commission agents. However, the addition on account of capital contribution was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry or applied his mind to the issue of 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements, as evidenced by the assessment order and the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue of comparability of certain companies was not properly dealt with by the DRP and remanded it for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground for exclusion of certain companies and remitted it for examination.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee with a copy of the incriminating statement and an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, following established precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made based on a sworn statement without providing the assessee with a copy of the statement or an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the estimated addition on account of gross profit was baseless and made solely on suspicions and surmises, as the assessee's audited books of account were not rejected. The addition to the closing stock of bran was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the agreements were primarily for the purchase of sites and not composite works contracts. The mere fact that the developer undertook ancillary activities like laying roads did not alter the fundamental nature of the transaction as a purchase of completed property.
The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be computed on gross receipts, not net receipts. This decision followed previous judgments from the Tribunal and the Kerala High Court.
The Tribunal held that since the facts and activities were the same as in previous and subsequent assessment years where the surplus was treated as charitable income, the Revenue was bound to take a consistent stand. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.