Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim for bad debt deduction required further verification regarding whether the debt was taken into account in computing income in earlier years and if corresponding credit entries were made in the debtors' accounts. These facts were not clear from the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of hardware with embedded software are not royalty, as they represent business profits. It also ruled that certain reimbursements were not fees for technical services due to lack of evidence of 'make available' clause fulfillment.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of hardware with embedded software are not royalty, as they represent business profits. It also ruled that certain reimbursements were not fees for technical services due to lack of evidence of 'make available' clause fulfillment.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the additions made for the assessment years prior to this date were not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding education cess, directing it to be considered as a deduction. For the interest income issue under Sections 10AA and 10B, the Tribunal remanded it to the AO for verification of nexus with eligible undertakings.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the additions made for the assessment years prior to this date were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot change the valuation method, the CIT(A) did not fully examine all aspects of the DCF valuation report. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination of specific valuation parameters.
The Tribunal held that on identical facts, the assessee's appeals for previous assessment years were also dismissed by the Tribunal for inordinate delay and negligence in filing. Therefore, following its own precedent, the present appeal is also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance of employee's PF contribution made before the return filing due date was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the provision for obsolete inventory and its reversal were netted off within the 'Changes in inventories' in the profit and loss account, and thus the reversal did not constitute income.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was not considered retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that a provision for bad and doubtful debts is a condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). However, it restored the issue of a specific provision of Rs. 2,91,337 made by the assessee to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance of employee's PF contribution made before the return filing due date was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal found that various issues, including Section 14A disallowances, aircraft expenses, interest expenses, and foreign exchange loss, required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored these issues to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that various issues, including Section 14A disallowances, aircraft expenses, interest expenses, and foreign exchange loss, required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored these issues to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that certain factual aspects and grounds for relief granted by the CIT(A) were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer or confronted with the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored these issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are not clarificatory and do not apply retrospectively to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that employees' contributions paid before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applies only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the additions made for the assessment year 2019-20 deserve to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is attracted only if the sum was allowed as a deduction in an earlier year. The Tribunal also noted that waiver of a loan for acquiring a capital asset does not attract Section 41(1). The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the nature of the liability.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, it ruled that employees' contributions paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
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 of filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43B and 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the addition related to old carried forward balances was justified for deletion. However, for fresh loans, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-examination due to the lack of proper confirmations before him.
The Tribunal held that guarantee commission is a contractual payment and not a 'levy' exclusively imposed on a State Government undertaking. Therefore, Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable to such payments.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred pursuant to directions from the Supreme Court for restoration and rehabilitation of ecological damage caused by mining. Therefore, these payments were not hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) and were allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO for the assessment years prior to the amendment is not sustainable.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of one company (ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.) and the negative working capital adjustment back to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for education cess and secondary and higher education cess as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds of agricultural land, when routed through banking channels and supported by buyer confirmation, cannot be treated as unexplained money. The addition made under Section 69A was therefore inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO for the assessment years prior to the amendment is not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed details of all legal heirs before the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to bring all legal heirs on record and conduct a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2019-2020, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2019-2020, the amendment does not apply.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2018-2019. Regarding GST, it was noted that the assessee had already disallowed the amount, and a further disallowance would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed details of all legal heirs before the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to bring all legal heirs on record and conduct a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that communication expenses and expenditure incurred in foreign currency should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed details of all legal heirs before the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the AO to bring all legal heirs on record and conduct a de novo assessment. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets given under finance lease should be re-adjudicated by the AO. It also directed the AO to allow the set-off of brought forward depreciation loss. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for administrative support services, the Tribunal held that if these expenses are subsumed in the operating costs under TNMM, no separate benchmarking is necessary.
The Tribunal held that while separate units should be considered individually for deduction if there's no interlacing or interdependence, the data furnished by the assessee, including Form 10CCB, needs to be verified by the AO. The CIT(A)'s finding that the data need not be verified was deemed improper.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-2019, the disallowance made by the AO was to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-2019, the deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed details of all legal heirs before the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to bring all legal heirs on record and conduct a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that while separate units should be considered individually for deduction if there's no interlacing or interdependence, the data furnished by the assessee, including Form 10CCB, needs to be verified by the AO. The CIT(A)'s finding that the data need not be verified was deemed improper.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding delayed remittance of employee's PF contribution, is not retrospective. Therefore, if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.