Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal relied on several High Court and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches, without corroborating evidence, do not hold evidentiary value. It also noted that retracted statements made under Section 132(4) require strong supporting material for additions to be sustained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also admitted the additional evidence sought by the assessee and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, without commenting on the merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also admitted the additional evidence sought by the assessee and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, without commenting on the merits.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of architectural services to the AO for further examination, stating that the nature of services needed verification. Regarding interest payments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that DTAA rates prevailed over Section 206AA, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on digital evidence or loose sheets found in third-party premises without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to substantiate allegations of on-money transactions.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for payments made for off-the-shelf software was not sustainable as, at the time of payment, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on the development of a new software platform, which was ultimately abandoned and never put to use, cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Similarly, marketing expenses incurred for general business promotion, without a direct nexus to the abandoned platform, are also revenue in nature.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if the Vivad Se Viswas application was not filed or accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if the Vivad Se Viswas application was not filed or accepted.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for constructing houses for flood victims, as per the MOU, has a direct nexus to the business and is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1). The lower authorities erred in disallowing this expenditure.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the negative working capital adjustment, holding that it should not be made for a captive service provider. It also allowed the MAT credit issue for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant consequential relief based on earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not remand the evidence to the AO or conduct independent verification, instead deleting additions based on the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if the Vivad Se Viswas application was not filed or accepted.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10AA. It also directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 10AA on profits increased by the addition made under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for payments made for off-the-shelf software was not sustainable as, at the time of payment, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided in a related case. The validity of proceedings under section 153C was upheld. Additions related to cash and gold were directed to be verified and considered in light of the previous ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided all issues raised by the assessee and directed the CIT(A) to decide these issues on merits. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal relied on a Karnataka High Court decision and found no merit in the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if the Vivad Se Viswas application was not filed or accepted.
The Tribunal held that bonus received by a co-operative society from its investment in another co-operative society, as per the bye-laws, is a distribution of profit and should be treated as dividend for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal found that while the AO considered the revised return for additions, he used the original return's income for tax computation. The Tribunal also noted that the nature of the bad debt claim (reversal of income vs. actual bad debt) was not clearly established, necessitating re-examination.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on the development of a new software platform, which was ultimately abandoned and never put to use, cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Similarly, marketing expenses incurred for general business promotion, without a direct nexus to the abandoned platform, are also revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide a certificate from the RBI regarding its business activities.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately considered the evidence regarding the assessee's efforts to recover the advance and the nature of the transaction. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme and filed an application to withdraw the appeal. Since the scheme application was accepted, the Tribunal decided not to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping them pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping them pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping them pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee would be moving an application to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence should have been admitted by the CIT(A) due to insufficient time granted by the AO. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and decide all issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity to both sides.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide the required CA certificate and other evidence. However, considering the circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary documents before the Assessing Officer.