Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to payment of costs, due to sufficient cause shown. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal restored the matters to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessees an opportunity to rebut evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to payment of costs, due to sufficient cause shown. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal restored the matters to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessees an opportunity to rebut evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that the revenue is precluded from pursuing the appeal due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that BMTC is a charitable institution and is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable as BMTC's dominant objective is not profit-making but providing public utility services.
The Tribunal held that payments received on sale of software licenses do not constitute royalty as the agreements do not grant rights to use copyright. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., the assessment of income as royalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment made under the omitted clause (i) of Section 92BA was invalid. Following High Court precedent, it ruled that an omitted provision is deemed to have never existed, invalidating actions taken under it.
The Tribunal held that payments received on sale of software licenses do not constitute royalty as the agreements do not grant rights to use copyright. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., the assessment of income as royalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that BMTC's dominant and prime objective is not profit-making but providing transportation facilities to the public as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable, and BMTC is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. For interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow proportionate expenses if assessed as income from other sources, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of proportionate expenses against interest income earned from cooperative banks. It also held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) for commission income on e-stamps, provided profits are properly determined.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee was directed to inform the AO about the settlement outcome and persuade them to seek recall of the order if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee was directed to inform the AO about the settlement outcome and persuade them to seek recall of the order if the settlement fails.
The assessee, having settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that 'deemed dividend' is assessable only in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the recipient company if it is not a shareholder in the lender company. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal & Sons (HUF) was distinguished as not applicable.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as they were to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the details of expenses furnished by the assessee and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The assessee, having settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The assessee, having settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order, based on the original assessment order which was set aside, was not sustainable. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in the set-aside assessment.
The assessee, having settled the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and their request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeal pending.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if necessary.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending as they were to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the TPO accepted the international transaction (professional fees) as arm's length, the AO could not invoke Section 40A(2) or Section 37 without further evidence. Regarding the forward cover premium, the Tribunal ruled that foreign currency is not a 'commodity' as per Section 43(5), thus it cannot be a speculative transaction.
The Tribunal held that since the TPO had accepted the professional fees as arm's length, the AO could not disallow them under Section 40A(2) or 37. It also held that premium on forward cover is not a speculative transaction under Section 43(5) as foreign currency is not a commodity.
The Tribunal held that the NSEL loss was a business loss, not a bad debt, and thus deductible against business income. Similarly, the interest expenditure was also found to be a business expense, deductible against business income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary applications. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and the supporting evidence, finding that the issue of investment in the son's name requires fresh consideration. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return due to genuine financial difficulties and the subsequent receipt of funds. The penalty under Section 271F was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cost of construction of the flats received by the assessee under the JDA, in lieu of land transferred, should be allowed as a deduction for calculating capital gains. The flats received represent the consideration for the land transferred.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition solely based on the statement of the director of the paper company without examining the assessee's explanations and books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention regarding the denial of cross-examination opportunity.
The Tribunal held that sale consideration cannot be determined solely on Form 26AS, especially when a registered sale deed exists. It stated that provisions like Section 2(47)(v) require a written contract and transfer of possession, not just TDS deduction.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous year, the Tribunal had denied exemption, but the appeal was pending before the High Court. The Tribunal found that the earlier order overlooked certain clauses of the Memorandum of Association. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reconsider the risk adjustment based on the provided quantification basis. The issue regarding the operating margin of Cyber Media Research Limited was remitted to the AO/TPO for re-computation.
The Tribunal noted a difference in the figure used by the Assessing Officer (AO) for income computation. It directed the assessee to provide all relevant details to the AO, who was instructed to verify them and dispose of the pending rectification petition. The ground raised was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the community welfare expenses incurred by the assessee were for business promotion and to gain goodwill of the local community. It was also noted that the restriction under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) regarding CSR applies only to companies and not to individuals.
The Tribunal held that the community welfare expenses incurred by the assessee were for business promotion and to gain goodwill of the local community. It was also noted that the restriction under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) regarding CSR applies only to companies and not to individuals.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous year, the Tribunal had denied exemption, but the appeal was pending before the High Court. The Tribunal found that the earlier order overlooked certain clauses of the Memorandum of Association. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted.