Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of two comparable companies and deleted the negative working capital adjustment, stating that the assessee had no working capital risk. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued after a revised return is filed is valid if it was issued after the AO assumed jurisdiction over the original return. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeal after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose given the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals under the VSVS-2020 scheme. Considering that the necessary forms were not yet filed, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to move for recall if the scheme is not availed or issues arise.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to examine the utilization of the loan funds to determine if they were used for business purposes. Since the assessee is already in the medical profession and depreciation has been granted on assets purchased with the loan, the business cannot be considered un-commenced.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and received Form 3. Consequently, the assessee withdrew their appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme and no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass a draft assessment order before issuing the final assessment order, as mandated by Section 144C(1), renders the final assessment order invalid. This decision aligns with various High Court and Supreme Court pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the classification of assets for depreciation should be based on their functional use. Regarding transfer pricing, it was held that product registration/licensing is a statutory requirement and not an exploitation of brand name, thus no royalty adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for public purposes at the request of local administration, with a view to long-term business benefit, is allowable as business expenditure. Regarding unaccounted receipts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to reconcile differences with the AO.
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions contradictory and the evidence, particularly the affidavits, unverified. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the contribution for the swimming pool was a personal expense and not for business purposes, upholding its disallowance. However, it set aside the transfer pricing adjustment related to royalty, finding no exploitation of product registration by associated enterprises.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would be withdrawing the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as part of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement process. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would be moving an application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F, as the phrase 'a residential house' does not prohibit construction of multiple units within a single building. However, since the assessee failed to produce all relevant evidence before the AO, the issue was restored to the AO for quantification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would move an application for withdrawing the appeal. Since the assessee had already filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. As no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2013-14, the unamended Section 194C(6) only required the PAN of the payee transporter for exemption from TDS, not a declaration about the number of vehicles owned. The disallowance was deleted for transporters whose PAN was submitted.
The Tribunal remitted the interest adjustment issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration regarding the LIBOR rate. For the reimbursement of expenses, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and allowed the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated bona fides during assessment by disclosing the bank accounts and reconciling credits, thus not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Regarding the penalty under Section 271B, the Tribunal found the delay in filing the audit report was due to ill health and not malafide, allowing deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gain/loss should be treated as operating in nature, following previous decisions. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh computation of ALP.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. Consequently, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that capital gains should be computed at the time of entering the JDA, and the fair market value of the constructed area then determined becomes the cost of acquisition for the flats. The failure to declare capital gains in the JDA year does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the correct cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that capital gains should be computed at the time of entering the JDA, and the fair market value of the constructed area then determined becomes the cost of acquisition for the flats. The failure to declare capital gains in the JDA year does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the correct cost of acquisition.
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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to participate in the VSVS 2020 scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if Form 1 was not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that income from providing services like power, security, and lift maintenance should be assessed separately under the head 'Income from other sources'. It directed the AO to reframe the assessment based on its previous order for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that in the absence of evidence of abuse or manipulation, and given the genuineness of the transaction, the donations could be considered corpus donations eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that depreciation on computer parts at 60% is allowable as per rules. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154. Interest on belated TDS was held to be compensatory and allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the pending appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the sale agreement did not bear the assessee's signature and there was no material to show the assessee had acted upon it. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69 of the Act was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view, as the mandatory furnishing of Form 3CL for claiming deduction under Section 35(2AB) was a debatable issue prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, the revision order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains should be computed at the time of entering the JDA, and the fair market value of the constructed area then determined becomes the cost of acquisition for the flats. The failure to declare capital gains in the JDA year does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the correct cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding section 12AA registration was previously remitted back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the current issue of 80G recognition back to the CIT(A) for examination with similar directions.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that both appeals were settled under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that both appeals were settled under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeals in due course after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that uncertain income, which is not received or realistically collectible, cannot be brought within the purview of taxable income. The Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the CIT(A) was found applicable.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) should be deleted as interest-free funds exceeded interest-free loans given. However, the addition under Section 2(22)(e) was upheld, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial relief. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C without referring it to the DVO, as mandated by the section.