Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the unrecovered advance, given in the normal course of business, should be treated as a trading loss. The assessee had taken reasonable steps to recover the amount, and it was irrecoverable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of bid loss deduction to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing him to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Taparia Tools. The assessee's appeal on the validity of reopening was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the payment did not exceed Rs. 25,000/- and the threshold for TDS under Section 194J was Rs. 30,000/-, no TDS was deductible. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted. The additional grounds regarding travelling expenses and depreciation were remanded.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the identity of funds accumulated under section 11(2) and current year's income is not possible when parked in bank deposits. Therefore, expenditures connected to the trust's main activity should be treated as application of income from earlier accumulations.
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed passed a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections before passing the assessment order, contrary to the CIT(A)'s finding. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed passed a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections before passing the assessment order, contrary to the CIT(A)'s finding. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not connected to the issue remanded by the High Court. Therefore, they were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the issue of bid loss deduction to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing him to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Taparia Tools. The assessee's appeal on the validity of reopening was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the lack of action from the assessee and the inability to contact them. Consequently, the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for additional depreciation as software development is not considered manufacturing. However, it allowed the Section 80G deduction for CSR donations, remanding the issue to the AO for verification of eligibility, as the claim is considered at the stage of computing total taxable income, independent of Section 37(1).
The Tribunal rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, it allowed the assessee's alternative plea for deduction of expenses incurred in earning interest income under Section 57, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that while the explanation to Section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, includes 'debt arising during the course of business' as an international transaction, the issue of charging interest on outstanding receivables requires further examination. The Tribunal noted that the impact on working capital and the reasons for delays in realization need to be assessed on a case-to-case basis.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the employee's contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed passed a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections before passing the assessment order, contrary to the CIT(A)'s finding. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not verified the assessee's submission regarding receipts exceeding Rs. 5 Crores. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(E) for verification and fresh consideration of the application.
The tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the lack of action from the assessee and the inability to contact them. Consequently, the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not valid as the alleged loss of revenue had already been brought to tax in the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the subsequent orders based on the Section 263 order were also annulled.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A. It restored issues related to accrued expenses, miscellaneous expenses, and reimbursement of expenses to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of depreciation on capitalized customs duty was also restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparable companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Tech Mahindra Limited) from the TPO's list. The TPO was instructed to recompute the ALP after excluding these companies and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is crucial for determining ALP under TNMM and directed the TPO to allow it. The Tribunal also noted that if working capital adjustments cannot be made, the comparable uncontrolled transactions would cease to be comparable.
The Tribunal held that communication charges and expenses incurred in foreign exchange should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. It also allowed education cess as a deductible business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that payments for software, in the context of the provided services and agreements, did not constitute royalty income taxable in India. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that payments for software, in the context of the provided services and agreements, did not constitute royalty income taxable in India. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that payments for software, in the context of the provided services and agreements, did not constitute royalty income taxable in India. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessment years can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. It also found that the AO wrongly disallowed transportation charges paid to Shri Jagadish Devadiga without considering evidence and denying cross-examination, thus violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessment years can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. It also found that the AO wrongly disallowed transportation charges paid to Shri Jagadish Devadiga without considering evidence and denying cross-examination, thus violating natural justice.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year, which allowed depreciation on goodwill. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation was upheld.
The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.
The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.
The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.
The Tribunal corrected the PAN of the assessee from ABHFS 8469H to ABMFS 5851N. It also clarified that the search referenced in the assessment order was conducted in the case of Sri Dadapeer, not K. Mahesh Kumar.
The tribunal held that foreign exchange gains are to be considered part of operating profit if they relate to the rendering of main services. Several comparable companies were remanded for fresh consideration by the TPO/AO based on specific filters like employee cost and related party transactions.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that internal comparable uncontrolled transactions are more appropriate than external comparables when available, as they provide a higher degree of comparability. Therefore, the TPO erred in choosing external comparables.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that payments for software, in the context of the provided services and agreements, did not constitute royalty income taxable in India. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the CUP method. The Tribunal noted that the CUP method is generally preferred when sufficient comparable data is available. Therefore, the rejection of the CUP method and application of TNMM was not justified.
The Tribunal held that payments for software, in the context of the provided services and agreements, did not constitute royalty income taxable in India. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the CUP method. The Tribunal noted that the CUP method is generally preferred when sufficient comparable data is available. Therefore, the rejection of the CUP method and application of TNMM was not justified.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on bank credits without considering debits or peak credit are unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove unexplained income from the bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that the retrieved stock was already included in the closing stock and therefore, taxing it again under Section 41(1) would result in double taxation. The addition for undervaluation of closing stock was also allowed with a direction for consequential effect in the subsequent year.