Loading ITAT cases…
289 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in making the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(vi) because the income appearing in Form 26AS was already included in the return of income under Section 44AD. The issue of whether the income should be taxed under Section 44AD or 44ADA cannot be decided during the Section 143(1)(a) processing.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in adding the value of 1500 grams of bullion without proper inquiry into the alleged modifications of the company's stock register. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant credit for all family members, including parents and brother's family, based on CBDT instructions and family status.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that for a transfer to be considered under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, there must be an enforceable contract under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the sale agreement was unregistered and the sale deed was executed in 2007, Section 50C was applicable.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal had to be withdrawn by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee was directed to persuade the AO to file an application for recall of the order if the settlement process failed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention at the time of purchase was not to engage in an adventure in the nature of trade. The conversion into plots and sale over several years, along with the land being treated as a capital asset in books, supported this.
The tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme indicated an intention not to pursue the pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the property was registered in the trustee's name, and the assessee failed to provide evidence of a trust resolution for this arrangement or restrictions on the trustee's alienation of the property. The Tribunal also highlighted the need to ascertain if trust funds or borrowed funds were used for the acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for interest paid on borrowed funds used for capital contribution to the firm, even if no interest income was received from the firm. The loss arising from this expenditure can be set off against other income under the head 'Profits and Gains from Business or Profession'.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme filing is not accepted.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous ITAT order, the subsequent assessment order based on it was of no consequence. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they were not interested in prosecuting the pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's accounting policy treated R&D as intangible assets, previous ITAT orders allowed revenue expenditure on R&D. However, for the current assessment years, the classification of R&D expenditure as revenue or capital was not clearly presented.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E) and the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), the issue should be restored to the AO/CPC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and decided to remit the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to adjudicate in light of the newly submitted court orders and after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal held that the Bangalore International Airport Ltd. (BIAL) is a statutory body, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case. Therefore, the assessee's agreement with BIAL satisfied the condition for deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal directed a fresh examination of the transfer pricing adjustment for the distribution segment. It also ruled that Section 10A deduction should be computed independently for the eligible undertaking without setting off losses from other units, following the Supreme Court's decision in Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the accounting policy treated R&D expenditure as intangible assets. While previous orders allowed revenue expenditure, the classification for the current assessment years was not clearly presented. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the CIT(A) for proper classification.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's accounting policy treated R&D as intangible assets, previous ITAT orders allowed revenue expenditure on R&D. However, for the current assessment years, the classification of R&D expenditure as revenue or capital was not clearly presented.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's accounting policy treated R&D as intangible assets, previous ITAT orders allowed revenue expenditure on R&D. However, for the current assessment years, the classification of R&D expenditure as revenue or capital was not clearly presented.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's accounting policy treated R&D as intangible assets, previous ITAT orders allowed revenue expenditure on R&D. However, for the current assessment years, the classification of R&D expenditure as revenue or capital was not clearly presented.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to 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 Resale Price Method (RPM) is appropriate for distributor functions, and expenses below the gross profit level do not affect its calculation. The Tribunal also held that the addition made by the AO regarding gratuity fund contribution was wrongly made and should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is appropriate for distributor functions, and expenses below the gross profit level do not affect its calculation. The Tribunal also held that the addition made by the AO regarding gratuity fund contribution was wrongly made and should be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and decided to remit the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to adjudicate in light of the newly submitted court orders and after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that without examining the partner of the lending firm, it is not possible to conclude that the loan was an unexplained cash credit. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication after examining the partner.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's accounting policy treated R&D as intangible assets, previous ITAT orders allowed revenue expenditure on R&D. However, for the current assessment years, the classification of R&D expenditure as revenue or capital was not clearly presented.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal filed before it. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course and that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if their Vivad Se Vishwas application was not accepted.