Loading ITAT cases…
180 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw all its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw all its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed ex parte without proper notice to the assessee, who had shifted residence. The assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to explain the source of deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging it as a bonafide act. The matter was then remanded back to the AO to verify the service agreement in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO were primarily due to a lack of explanation or difference of opinion on accounting treatment, not due to a demonstrably false claim. Therefore, the conditions for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were not satisfied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw all its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was based on an ITAT order that has now been set aside, the assessment order itself becomes non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed ex parte without proper notice to the assessee, who had shifted residence. The assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to explain the source of deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable to the assessee, and that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, as the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the home theatre was used for business purposes and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, negating the need for interest disallowance on funds diverted to a sister concern.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claims and submissions.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claims and submissions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Principal CIT's direction to re-examine the deduction under section 80P in light of Supreme Court judgments. The assessment order was set aside to the assessing officer for a fresh order.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal remitted the bad debts issue to the AO for examining alternative claims under Sections 28 or 37(1). The disallowance of aircraft expenses for one trip was confirmed, but the proportionate depreciation was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). However, it directed the AO to allow deduction for expenses incurred in earning this interest income under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that the crucial aspect to determine TDS liability is who actually made the payment for land acquisition. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to verify if the payment was made by the State Government, in which case no TDS liability would arise.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's direction to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the deduction under section 80P in light of Supreme Court decisions, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Principal CIT's direction to re-examine the deduction under section 80P in light of Supreme Court judgments. The assessment order was set aside to the assessing officer for a fresh order.
The assessee requested to withdraw ground No.5 of its appeal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the ground.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) is not sustainable as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee's share of ESI/PF paid belatedly, but before the due date for filing the return of income, is not permissible. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of software, even with support services, are not royalty. This is because the assessee grants a user license and does not transfer any copyright, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of expenditure. Both parties conceded that the issue was covered by a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. Since remanding to CIT(A) would be unproductive, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA is to be computed on the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting losses from other units. It also confirmed that deduction is not limited to business income and can be claimed against gross total income.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not disputed the assessee's business as a coffee commission agent and that business realities could not be ignored. It directed that the entire deposits be regarded as receipts from coffee commission business and estimated the income at the highest commission rate of 0.55%.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA is to be computed on the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting losses from other units. It also confirmed that deduction is not limited to business income and can be claimed against gross total income.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. It also found that the disallowance of club expenses was debatable and should not have been made under Section 143(1)(a).
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking consideration of the assessee's contentions and evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of the salary earned for services rendered outside India needs to be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer (AO) in light of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to established principles that salary accrues where employment services are rendered.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify if interest/dividend income was from investments with co-operative societies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s direction regarding TDS verification was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not brought on record any evidence to show that the assessee firm itself made the investments. The confirmations from the individuals indicated the investments were in their personal capacity, and the circumstances by which the AO concluded the investments belonged to the assessee were unclear.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a technical view and that the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The matter was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the previous dismissal by the CIT(Appeals) was on technical grounds without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also noted the controversy regarding the levy of interest under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, referencing a Karnataka High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. It also found that the disallowance of club expenses was debatable and should not have been made under Section 143(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction was allowed.