Loading ITAT cases…
209 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited within the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is allowable as a deduction. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding corporate management services and restored the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. For the Section 10AA deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. It found that the assessee had not demonstrated the asset was ready for capitalization or sale, and the assessee's own admission of the software's nil market value contradicted its claim for depreciation.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for 8 quarters on the ground of delay, considering the substantial justice principle and the assessee's explanation. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the levy of fees under Section 234E, computed under Section 200A, was impermissible for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and applicable only from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable only from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the addition made for the assessment year 2019-20 deserves to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
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, for the assessment year in question, the payment made before the due date of filing the return of income was allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and applicable only from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the addition made for the assessment year 2018-19, where payments were made before the return filing due date, was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11 as the assessee subsequently obtained the required 12AA registration certificate, making it eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for 8 quarters on the ground of delay, considering the substantial justice principle and the assessee's explanation. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the levy of fees under Section 234E, computed under Section 200A, was impermissible for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for 8 quarters on the ground of delay, considering the substantial justice principle and the assessee's explanation. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the levy of fees under Section 234E, computed under Section 200A, was impermissible for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. It found that the assessee had not demonstrated the asset was ready for capitalization or sale, and the assessee's own admission of the software's nil market value contradicted its claim for depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income was taxable as Section 10(33) was omitted for the relevant assessment year. The contention that the payment was in the nature of capital due to liquidation proceedings was rejected as the dividend was declared and DDT paid prior to liquidation.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the TPO's reasons for rejecting CPM for raw material purchases were unsustainable, and that RPM was the appropriate method for trading, as previously held in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remanded the case to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination.
The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11 as the assessee subsequently obtained the required 12AA registration certificate, making it eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure. It found that the borrowed funds were advanced to the director without interest, and the purchase of property for which the advance was given did not materialize for a significant period.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no objection from the revenue.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of one comparable company and remitted another for fresh consideration. It also directed the grant of working capital and risk adjustments, and restored the issue of education cess deduction to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal found that the material on record did not conclusively establish whether the donations exceeded the prescribed limits or constituted capitation fees. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for verification. For a separate issue regarding interest income, the Tribunal held that income should be taxed in the hands of the right person (HUF) and remanded the issue to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the auditor's negligence, stating that the assessee should not suffer for the fault of their representative. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to adjudicate the case on merits.
The Tribunal found that the material on record did not conclusively establish whether the donations exceeded prescribed limits or constituted capitation fees. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to prove that donations were collected within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal found that the material on record did not conclusively establish whether the donations exceeded prescribed limits or constituted capitation fees. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to prove that donations were collected within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that the AO had called for details late in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found sufficient reason for the assessee's delay in furnishing ledger accounts.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd., which reversed earlier High Court rulings on software payments, is relevant. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh examination in light of this Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal found that the material on record did not conclusively establish whether the donations exceeded prescribed limits or constituted capitation fees. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to prove that donations were collected within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal found that the material on record did not conclusively establish whether the donations exceeded prescribed limits or constituted capitation fees. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to prove that donations were collected within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act does not mandate filing the audit report along with the return of income, and filing it before the due date is sufficient. It also noted that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him, especially since the matter was decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted additional evidence regarding the sale consideration and that the assessee is entitled to make fresh claims for deduction before appellate authorities. Both issues were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The recent amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were found to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that debiting the provision for doubtful debts to the P&L account and reducing it from sundry debtors in the balance sheet constitutes a sufficient write-off. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income, as dividend income from domestic companies was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not applicable retrospectively.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income, as dividend income from domestic companies was taxable.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income, as dividend income from domestic companies was taxable.
For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was to be recomputed considering only investments yielding exempt income, as dividend income from domestic companies was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions for employee's contributions paid before the due date for filing returns.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables used for determining the ALP, citing functional dissimilarity and significant revenue from non-core activities. It also directed the TPO to recompute the ALP in the ITES segment.