Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS statements as non est, as there is no provision in the Act for such a declaration. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the Section 234E fee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS statements as non est, as there is no provision in the Act for such a declaration. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the Section 234E fee.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statements and reports relied upon by the AO were not provided, and cross-examination was not allowed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that restrictions on membership do not automatically disqualify an association from being charitable if its dominant purpose is for the advancement of general public utility. The CIT's conclusion that benefits did not enure to the general public was found to be factually incorrect.
The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence for gross receipts from agricultural sales. While expenditure details were lacking, the Tribunal estimated expenditure at 30% of receipts, determining net agricultural income. The addition made by the AO was partly sustained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that 'Persistent Systems Ltd' should be excluded from the list of comparables due to its nature as a software product company with unavailable segmental information. It also directed that no negative working capital adjustment should be made, as the assessee did not bear working capital risk.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on grounds of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to first dispose of the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 before adjudicating the current appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS statements as non est, as there is no provision in the Act for such a declaration. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the Section 234E fee.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was in violation of natural justice. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that issuing a second notice under section 148 without withdrawing the first notice is invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on the second notice is void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment under Section 153A without proper findings on whether the assessee's name was included in the search warrant and if incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C for non-deduction of tax at source was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-deduction, considering the debatable nature of the issue and the subsequent clarification by judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee on the delay violates principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee on the delay violates principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision which held that interest income from temporary parking of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication on merit. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was denied cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon by the AO.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the 80G application solely on the ground of insufficient activities, especially after granting 12AA registration. The Tribunal directed that recognition under section 80G be granted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on buildings, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on renovation of leased office premises, which was for a limited period and primarily for interior and electrical works, was revenue expenditure. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) and AO had not verified the assessee's claim that the income from the property sale was declared in the return. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's interpretation of the condition regarding 100 new workmen was not explicitly stated in the provision. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on the satisfaction of other conditions for the deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as withdrawn due to a MAP resolution. Regarding the employee's PF contribution, the Tribunal held that if remitted within the due date, it should be allowed as a deduction, and remanded the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal was wrongly filed and was superfluous as a similar appeal was already pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided both issues against the Assessee in part. For the first issue concerning the increase in share capital, the Tribunal held that fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for expanding the capital base are directly related to capital expenditure and retain their character as such, even if they incidentally help the business. This aligns with the Supreme Court's decisions in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Kodak India Limited. Therefore, the Assessee's ground of appeal on this point was found to have no merit. For the second issue regarding the Rs. 22,69,050, the Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee's appeal. It held that expenses incurred in Bangalore and Delhi (Rs. 3,92,752 and Rs. 1,38,343 respectively) could not be considered capital expenditure as new installations were only in Mumbai. Thus, the addition to this extent was deleted. Regarding the Rs. 17,37,955 incurred in Mumbai, the Tribunal found that the nature of these expenses (travelling, food, mobile bills, etc.) indicated they were revenue expenditure, and the grouping under 'installation charges' did not make them capital. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) for this amount was also deleted. The operative direction was to delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 22,69,050.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A related to interest expenditure, following the Karnataka High Court ruling. For foreign travel expenses, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is admitted to be only a 1/3rd owner of the flats, her claim for deduction under Section 54 for the entire amount of purchase is not logical. Therefore, the deduction is allowable only to the extent of her 1/3rd share in the investment.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the bad debts claim and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Similarly, due to a discrepancy in Form 26AS regarding interest on refund, the Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for determining the ALP, overturning the TPO's reliance on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). It also remanded the issue of whether extended credit periods to the AE constituted an international transaction for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to a reasonable cause. The issue of liability under Section 234E was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is necessary for proper comparison of profit margins and found no merit in the Revenue's ground regarding this. Regarding Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal ruled that communication charges should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, following jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of deficit cash balance. It reasoned that an addition cannot be based on an incorrect and wrongly maintained cash book, especially when vouchers were self-made and lacked proper numbering.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for determining the ALP, overturning the TPO's reliance on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). It also remanded the issue of whether extended credit periods to the AE constituted an international transaction for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to give consequential relief on the levy of interest under section 234B was in accordance with law. The assessee's grievance regarding the manner of charging interest should be raised against the AO's order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order.