Loading ITAT cases…
209 orders · Page 3 of 5
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 deduction for employee's ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.
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 held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were held to be prospective, not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year under consideration. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains from the JDA were indeed taxable in AY 2009-10, as the conditions for a deemed transfer under Section 2(47)(v) were not met in AY 2005-06. The assessee received the developed property in AY 2009-10.
At the time of the hearing, the assessee's counsel indicated that the appeal was not being pressed. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were reasonably presumed to be from rental security deposits received by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s enhancement and addition were not upheld.
The Tribunal held that co-operative societies carrying on banking business are not required to deduct tax at source on interest paid to their members, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) applies to such payments.
The Tribunal held that the issue of carry forward of unabsorbed deficit for application in subsequent years is covered by previous decisions of co-ordinate benches. Following these precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were held to be prospective, not retrospective.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they ultimately opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and, after considering the arguments and precedents, directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables in the transfer pricing analysis. The Tribunal also allowed working capital adjustment for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that loss on sale of investment is a capital loss and not application of income, but restored the issue for AO to examine set-off claims. It also held that depreciation is allowable as application of income, and directed AO to allow accumulation on gross income.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI 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 not considered retrospective.
The Tribunal held that while goodwill is an eligible asset for depreciation, the adjustments to debtors and inventory leading to enhanced goodwill were not in line with the valuation report. However, the assessee was allowed an alternate claim for deduction on inventory write-off and bad debts, remanding the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they ultimately opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that while goodwill is an eligible asset for depreciation, the adjustments to debtors and inventory leading to enhanced goodwill were not in line with the valuation report. However, the assessee was allowed an alternate claim for deduction on inventory write-off and bad debts, remanding the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while goodwill is an eligible asset for depreciation, the adjustments to debtors and inventory leading to enhanced goodwill were not in line with the valuation report. However, the assessee was allowed an alternate claim for deduction on inventory write-off and bad debts, remanding the issue for fresh consideration.
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 employee's contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI 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 not considered retrospective.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the comparability of one company, Sravan Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. However, as the lower authorities had not considered this issue, the matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54(1) as the capital gains were reinvested in accordance with the provisions. The AO's disallowance was therefore incorrect.
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 retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B 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, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of the assessee's choice of foreign AE as the tested party was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the TPO had not properly considered the available material and had incorrectly foreclosed the assessee's plea.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was not issued by the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was not legally sustainable and was null in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the corrected Form 26AS, which indicated the receipts belonged to the firm. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the corrected Form 26AS and tax only the income actually received by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B is not clarificatory or 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 held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were held to be prospective, not retrospective.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed the issue of commercial expediency and business purpose required examination by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons. The CIT(A) had allowed a portion of administrative and financial expenditure, and the Tribunal was to decide on the quantum of capital gains and other related issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the agricultural income issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided lease details to the CIT(A) and thus restored the issue for fresh examination. Similarly, the investment discrepancy was also restored for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons. The CIT(A) had allowed a portion of administrative and financial expenditure, and the Tribunal was to decide on the quantum of capital gains and other related issues.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow claims for MAT credit, TDS credit, and advance tax credit if found correct. The levy of interest under Section 234A and 234D was also directed to be verified and adjusted if erroneous. The transfer pricing adjustment was reworked based on directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the foreign agents were primarily marketing support, not managerial, technical, or consultancy services. Therefore, the payments did not fall under 'Fee for Technical Services' and income accrued abroad, not in India.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow claims for MAT credit, TDS credit, and advance tax credit if found correct. The levy of interest under Section 234A and 234D was also directed to be verified and adjusted if erroneous. The transfer pricing adjustment was reworked based on directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the foreign agents were primarily marketing support, not managerial, technical, or consultancy services. Therefore, the payments did not fall under 'Fee for Technical Services' and income accrued abroad, not in India.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the foreign agents were primarily marketing support and incidental services, not managerial, technical, or consultancy services. Therefore, they did not fall under 'Fee for Technical Services' and the income accrued abroad.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date for filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective, not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) is a mandatory notice and must be issued within the prescribed time limit. Failure to do so renders the assessment order void.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee is entitled to deduction if the payment was made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the employee's contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not confront the additional evidence regarding property ownership with the AO. Therefore, the issue of Section 54F deduction was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of unadjudicated interest expenditure was not adjudicated as the Revenue was not aggrieved by it.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on a High Court decision that was later reversed by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd. The Supreme Court held that payments for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not royalty and do not give rise to taxable income in India, thus no TDS is required.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs from the HUF was not sustainable as the HUF had past savings and had responded to the AO's notice. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs from Upendranath was deleted as the assessee had sufficiently established the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction, and the source of the loan given to Upendranath was not relevant for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits represented sale proceeds from the assessee's business, which had already been offered for taxation, adding them again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had sufficient stock and sales were accounted for in the regular books of accounts.
The Tribunal recalled its ex-parte order due to sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. It then restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were paid within the due date for filing the income tax return, which is permissible under the Income Tax Act. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.