Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries into the assessee's claims, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for de novo assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 234B on incremental income pursuant to the APA. Other grounds related to Section 10AA, Section 37(1), and Section 40(a) were not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests a mixed result.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses for AY 2010-11 was not justified as the surrendered income could cover such deficiencies. For the protective additions of bank deposits, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds regarding the assessee's non-existence for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses for AY 2010-11 was not justified as the surrendered income could cover such deficiencies. For the protective additions of bank deposits, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds regarding the assessee's non-existence for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal found that the AO's method for calculating rural advances under Section 36(1)(viia) was incorrect as it did not follow Rule 6ABA. For Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent methodology, previously accepted by the AO, was changed without justification.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court. It directed the AO to exclude expenses from total turnover that were already removed from export turnover when calculating the Section 10AA deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been served with Form 3. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's order condoning the delay in filing the return effectively relaxed the condition of filing within the due date for the purpose of claiming deductions like Section 10A. Therefore, the assessee should be deemed to have complied with the filing requirement.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses for AY 2010-11 was not justified as the surrendered income could cover such deficiencies. For the protective additions of bank deposits, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds regarding the assessee's non-existence for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the inclusion of 'Cosmic Global Ltd.' as a comparable. It also allowed the assessee's ground challenging the negative working capital adjustment for captive service providers. The revenue's grounds challenging the exclusion of certain companies and the deduction under Section 10A were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular is applicable to pending cases as well.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the inclusion of 'Cosmic Global Ltd.' as a comparable. It also allowed the assessee's ground challenging the negative working capital adjustment for captive service providers. The revenue's grounds challenging the exclusion of certain companies and the deduction under Section 10A were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the payment was made on a principal-to-principal basis for utilizing advertisement space, and CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2016 clarified that TDS under Section 194C is not attracted in such cases. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground concerning the BAPA, finding it to be a purely legal ground. It held that since the BAPA covered the assessment year under appeal, the price agreed therein must be applied.
The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the DRP's directions regarding transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 10A deduction, it was held that foreign currency expenses should be excluded from both export and total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular also applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the DRP's directions regarding transfer pricing adjustments. For Section 10A deduction, it was held that foreign currency expenses should be excluded from both export and total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that while the delay in filing TDS returns was not a technical breach, the penalty should be computed from the date of TDS payment to the government, considering the circumstances. The penalty was restricted based on this computation.
The Tribunal held that the negative working capital adjustment made by the TPO was not sustainable, following previous decisions of the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessee's ground related to this adjustment was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the negative working capital adjustment made by the TPO was not sustainable, following previous decisions of the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessee's ground related to this adjustment was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) needed to be examined afresh by the AO. This examination should consider the society's bye-laws, relevant state co-operative acts, and other circumstances, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the cost of construction and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The claim for additional deduction under Section 54 was rejected as it was a new claim before the Tribunal, and the issue of cost of land was also restored to the AO.
The tribunal allowed the deduction for employee contributions to EPF paid before the return filing date. Regarding transfer pricing, the tribunal directed the TPO to allow working capital adjustment, finding that the assessee's profit margin would be within the arm's length price after such adjustment.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions of Rs. 15.00 lakhs related to demand drafts from Sangameshwara Enterprises, N.R. Veerappa, and V.B. Manik Rao. However, additions of Rs. 7.00 lakhs from Shri Nagaraj and Shri U.G. Rohit were confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and would likely withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) hinges on whether the recipient of shares is a resident. Since this was not conclusively determined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the fall in GP rate, especially since 95% of sales were to sister concerns at old rates despite rising purchase costs. The addition made by the AO was considered reasonable and not excessive.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued to the partnership firm was not a valid notice to the individual assessee and was also issued prior to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recall of the order if Form 1 was not accepted by the department and the assessee did not accept the liability mentioned in Form 3.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form 3 from the department. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal due to the APA. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and consequently dismissed the assessee's cross-objection. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall of the order if the case falls under an exemption to the CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest income deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sales Society. Regarding nominal members, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, suggesting that nominal members might be considered in the definition of members for deduction purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the loan from the son-in-law was accepted for AY 2012-13, the gift of the same sum in AY 2015-16 should also be accepted. The addition made by the revenue authorities was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation can be claimed on assets even if treated as application of income in earlier years, following Supreme Court precedent. It also ruled that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not for profit, making it eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the valuation method chosen by the assessee (DCF) but can scrutinize the valuation report and its underlying assumptions. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision following the DCF method.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked clarity on the specific limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for levying the penalty. The notice and assessment order did not clearly specify the grounds for penalty, indicating a lack of application of mind. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, especially when the AO seeks to substitute the assessee's computation, is debatable. Therefore, initiating proceedings under Section 154 for such a matter was inappropriate.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeals in due course. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.