Loading ITAT cases…
249 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already directed the AO to re-compute the Section 10A deduction. Given that this adjustment would render the assessee's grounds academic, the Tribunal chose not to adjudicate the appeal directly.
The Tribunal held that when the CIT(A) determined that the assessment fell outside the purview of Section 153A, the assessment order should have been declared bad in law. Consequently, other grounds regarding the merits of additions became academic.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's additional grounds regarding the applicability of Section 153C versus Section 148, finding no relevance in prior ITAT orders. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the additions made by the AO, noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach for recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme or face issues with it.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two companies from the comparable list and remanded the comparability of a third company for fresh consideration. It also directed the examination of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 43B by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was correct and in accordance with law, as the issue was covered by previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the stay petition and the connected appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This was because the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order after rejecting the assessee's adjournment application.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was correct and in accordance with law, as the issue was covered by previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that Wipro cannot be treated as an assessee in default for payments made prior to October 15, 2011, due to a bonafide belief based on earlier Tribunal decisions. The demand raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 was valid as it was based on a subsequent judicial pronouncement. However, the provision for sales returns was disallowed as it did not represent a present obligation arising from a past event. The issue of disallowance for expenses where TDS was deducted at source was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 was valid as it was based on a subsequent judicial pronouncement. However, the provision for sales returns was disallowed as it did not represent a present obligation arising from a past event. The issue of disallowance for expenses where TDS was deducted at source was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54. It found that the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrated the construction of a residential house within the statutory period, and the absence of an occupation certificate was not a ground to deny the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. It held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 due to the AO's failure to make necessary inquiries. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to substantiate their claim for deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions in similar cases, directed the exclusion of several comparable companies from the TPO's list. The exclusion was based on functional dissimilarity or high related party transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the method of valuation chosen by the assessee (DCF method) but can scrutinize the valuation report. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on the date of valuation, not future actuals.
The Tribunal held that the service income had a clear nexus with the supply of software and providing services were inter-linked. Therefore, the service fees received should be regarded as profits derived from the industrial undertaking's manufacturing activity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. It held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 due to the AO's failure to make necessary inquiries. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to substantiate their claim for deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 was valid as it was based on a subsequent judicial pronouncement. However, the provision for sales returns was disallowed as it did not represent a present obligation arising from a past event. The issue of disallowance for expenses where TDS was deducted at source was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 was valid as it was based on a subsequent judicial pronouncement. However, the provision for sales returns was disallowed as it did not represent a present obligation arising from a past event. The issue of disallowance for expenses where TDS was deducted at source was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal has corrected the name of the assessee in the cause title of ITA No.218/Bang/2015. The original name 'M/s. EYBGS India Pvt. Ltd.' has been substituted with 'M/s. EYGBS Ltd.'.
The Tribunal has corrected the name of the assessee in the cause title of ITA No.218/Bang/2015. The original name 'M/s. EYBGS India Pvt. Ltd.' has been substituted with 'M/s. EYGBS Ltd.'.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the assessee had already filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign contribution to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO is directed to examine the purpose of the foreign contribution and its utilization for the intended purpose, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of loan confirmation letters, stating that penalty proceedings are separate from quantum assessment. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination of these documents.
The Tribunal held that since the trust owns and runs the institution, any cause of action related to the institution arises against the trust. Therefore, the trust was the correct entity to file the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a case of construction of an apartment, thus allowing a 3-year period for investment. It also ruled that depositing the sale proceeds in the capital gains account scheme is not mandatory if the entire sale consideration is invested within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the VSVS 2020 scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to move for recall of the order if the Form 1 filed under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the MAP resolution and the VSVS 2020 scheme. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no infirmity in the DRP's decision regarding the exclusion of certain expenses from total turnover and export turnover for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal due to opting for the VSVS 2020 scheme. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that expenses related to the project should be treated as 'Work in Progress', while other expenses would be allowed as deduction after bifurcation. Interest income was confirmed as 'income from other sources' as business compulsion was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that expenses related to the project should be treated as 'Work in Progress', while other expenses would be allowed as deduction after bifurcation. Interest income was confirmed as 'income from other sources' as business compulsion was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the VSVS 2020 scheme. Liberty was granted to move for recall of the order if the scheme filing was not accepted or if the assessee opted out.
The Tribunal held that expenses related to the project should be treated as 'Work in Progress', while other expenses would be allowed as deduction after bifurcation. Interest income was confirmed as 'income from other sources' as business compulsion was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. Liberty was granted to move for recall if the Form 1 filed under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in changing the method of valuation without properly scrutinizing the assessee's DCF valuation report. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on the DCF method.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard as the CIT(Exemptions)'s letter was not served. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme or face issues with it.
The Tribunal restored both the depreciation and transfer pricing issues back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide the depreciation issue in line with the Tribunal's previous order concerning the ICDS Ltd. judgment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction could not be allowed in the current year. The expenses related to an abandoned project should have been claimed in the year of termination (FY 2009-10), and the assessee had not followed the procedures for claiming and carrying forward losses in earlier years.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Mall shopping festival expenses were correctly netted against income and thus not required to be separately debited. Similarly, the parking expenses were debited to the landlord's account and not claimed by the assessee, making the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Totgars and the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Tumkur Merchants depended on whether the funds earning interest were out of liability or own funds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a mere write-off of debt as irrecoverable in the accounts is sufficient for claiming deduction. The AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on pre-amendment principles or distinguishable case law was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to produce further details regarding the differences amounting to Rs. 10,23,461.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as the Assessing Officer had not properly inquired into the assessee's claim regarding lease payments and the treatment of leased assets. The revision order was upheld.