Loading ITAT cases…
116 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted if interest-free own funds exceed investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the average value.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance accordingly.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the revenue's rectification application. The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investments, which held that Section 14A disallowances cannot be automatically added back to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that 14 out of 26 comparable companies chosen by the TPO should be excluded as they were functionally different, based on a previous ITAT decision. Consequently, the ALP determination was revised, leading to a reduction in the addition to the total income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider whether the assessee's own funds exceeded investments, to exclude investments not yielding exempt income, and to ensure the disallowance does not exceed the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the CIT(A) had passed orders without properly addressing the assessee's explanations. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, the investments were presumed to be made out of own funds. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings pending before the appellate authority should be considered as 'assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer' for the purpose of the proviso to Section 12A(2). However, since the assessee did not claim exemption before the AO, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned in the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on CCDs before their conversion into equity should be treated as interest on debt and allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal distinguished the Special Bench decision as it dealt with issue expenses, not interest payments.
The tribunal restored the issues related to commission expenditure and bonus/ex-gratia to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration due to non-consideration of evidence and lack of clarity. However, the disallowance of sales promotion expenditure was upheld as the assessee failed to establish the incurrence and quantification of the liability with reasonable certainty.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable. It also noted that the issue of taxing assets under Section 28(1)(iv) would not impact tax liability due to Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that demands for fees under Section 234E cannot be raised under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The appeals were considered valid and the demands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that demands for fees under Section 234E cannot be raised under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The appeals were considered valid and the demands were deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 35 lakhs to the AO for examination, finding that the AO was deprived of checking new facts. For the Rs. 10,21,170 addition, the Tribunal dismissed the rental deposit claim, restored the Rs. 2 lakhs withdrawal issue to the AO for verification, and confirmed the addition for the remaining amount due to lack of evidence for opening cash balance.
The Tribunal held that demands for fees under Section 234E cannot be raised under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The appeals were considered valid and the demands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee, there was no delay in filing the appeal. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that all comparable companies selected by the TPO were liable to be excluded based on the turnover filter and previous tribunal decisions. For the marketing support segment, the Tribunal also found issues with the opportunity given to the assessee. For the subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal found merit in considering only the operating costs related to the revenue generated in the first two months of operation.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, following a Supreme Court decision. Regarding Section 80G, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee followed a consistent accounting system accepted by the revenue in earlier years, including AY 2012-13. Therefore, the disallowance of revenue expenditure was not tenable.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration under section 12AA, the CIT(E) is only required to examine the genuineness of the objects and not the actual activities. The CIT(E) did not specify what further details were required from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court had ruled in favor of co-operative societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act being eligible for Section 80P deduction. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the issue of taxing interest income on surplus funds had been addressed by the High Court. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and mechanically rejected the assessee's claim without verifying records, violating principles of natural justice. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a well-reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by invalidating the appeal and then deciding it on merits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that penalties for statutory disallowances due to non-deduction of TDS are not leviable as per the Reliance Petro Products Ltd. judgment. It also found that the CSR expense disallowance was due to a bonafide and inadvertent omission by the assessee, thus not attracting penalty.
The Tribunal held that the addition for notional lease rent was not justified as the AO did not provide material to substantiate the fair market value. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was also not upheld as the AO's valuation method was disputed. The disallowance under Section 14A was also partly confirmed.
The Tribunal held that a negative working capital adjustment is not applicable to a captive service provider that does not bear working capital risk and is compensated on a cost-plus basis. The TPO should have made a positive adjustment to comparables instead.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance (manager's medical emergency abroad) to be realistic and supported by evidence. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after providing an opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal held that it was a case of purchase of a residential property, not construction, and the purchase date was within the permissible period before the sale of the old asset. However, the quantum of deduction for the assessee's share needed to be determined.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition for notional lease rent was not justified as the AO did not provide material to substantiate the fair market value. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was also not upheld as the AO's valuation method was disputed. The disallowance under Section 14A was also partly confirmed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order with reasons as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order violated this provision.
The Tribunal held that if the recipients have disclosed and paid taxes on the received amounts, no disallowance is warranted. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for verification of tax payment by the recipients.
The Tribunal found a gross violation of principles of natural justice as the CIT(A) did not decide the legal issue raised by the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and pass a reasoned order on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping them pending since the assessees had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if they intended to do so.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting recognition under Section 80G, the extent and nature of activities do not need to be examined. The CIT's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required by law. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the suspicious share transaction, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) was justified in initiating revision proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the manual filing of the first appeal was a technical breach and that the second electronically filed appeal should not have been dismissed. The Tribunal condoned the delay in electronic filing and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT instruction was not applicable as the first appellate authority's powers were amended. Furthermore, the original assessment order was invalid, making the Section 154 proceedings misconceived. The Tribunal quashed the Section 154 orders.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of Rs. 13 lakhs received from non-members and also found the CIT(A)'s order regarding exhibition income unclear. Therefore, both issues were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT instruction was not applicable as the first appellate authority's powers were amended. Furthermore, the original assessment order was invalid, making the Section 154 proceedings misconceived. The Tribunal quashed the Section 154 orders.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of not filing electronically, when filed in paper form within time, would lead to miscarriage of justice. The appeals were set aside.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of not filing electronically, when filed in paper form within time, would lead to miscarriage of justice. The appeals were set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.