Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are to be considered co-operative societies eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members, relying on Section 194A(3)(v) and a co-ordinate bench's decision regarding pigmy commission.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, directing the AO to re-examine the issues raised. However, it clarified that the deduction under Rule 7A(2) should not exceed the amount claimed in the original assessment order.
The Tribunal held that since the DRP had already determined M/s Microland Ltd (Seg.) as functionally comparable and the revenue had not disputed this, the TPO should have included it. The AO/TPO was directed to include this company for determining the arm's length price.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) violated principles of natural justice by admitting fresh evidence without proper consideration of the AO's objections and without seeking the AO's comments on the merits of the evidence. The issue was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, finding they emanated from the AO's order. However, since the issue was not adjudicated by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted the grounds back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no brought forward business loss after the capital reduction scheme, rendering the reliance on previous judgments inapplicable. Consequently, the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against book profit was disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances under sections 43B and 40 were indeed double disallowances and thus liable to be deleted. For the disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, allowing deduction for employee PF contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income, and held that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective.
The Tribunal took note of the assessee's letter seeking to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivas Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices due to the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are to be considered co-operative societies eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members, relying on Section 194A(3)(v) and a co-ordinate bench's decision regarding pigmy commission.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require proper opportunity of hearing. Since the CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without hearing the assessee, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require proper opportunity of hearing. Since the CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without hearing the assessee, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act, concerning specified domestic transactions, was omitted retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2017. However, it restored the issue of trade creditors to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for employee contributions to PF and ESI if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. The recent amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income 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 principles of natural justice require proper opportunity of hearing. Since the CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without hearing the assessee, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that certain legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the reopening of assessment and the application of Section 50C(2) were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). These issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income 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 the issue regarding the exclusion of extraordinary expenses from operating costs for ALP determination should be remanded to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the AO/TPO to consider the issue of double taxation of ALP adjustment.
The Tribunal held that share application money should be excluded from investments for Section 14A calculations, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance. The disallowance of expenses was restored to the AO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that certain legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the reopening of assessment and the application of Section 50C(2) were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). These issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
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 years in question, the employee's contribution to ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) was allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction if payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was not applicable as it was not clarificatory and applied prospectively.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to a deduction.
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, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that share application money should be excluded from investments for Section 14A calculations, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance. The disallowance of expenses was restored to the AO for fresh determination.
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 years in question, the employee's contribution to ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) was allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the foreign exchange loss on restatement of liabilities as a revenue expenditure. The issue of excise duty on exports was restored to the AO for fresh examination as it was a new claim.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) requires fresh examination by the AO in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment. For income from bank deposits, the AO is directed to allow proportionate expenses if such income is taxed as 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that the issue of working capital adjustment should be re-examined by the TPO/AO. The TPO/AO was directed to compute the ALP afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the guidelines on comparability adjustments.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. The tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F for one residential house, as per the amended provisions applicable from AY 2015-16. The proviso to Section 54F, which excludes ownership of more than one residential house other than the new asset, was considered.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) does not apply when goodwill arises for the first time in the hands of the amalgamated company due to amalgamation, and not in the books of the amalgamating company. Depreciation on such goodwill is allowable.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the payment is made before the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation on machinery used for milk processing, as the assessee is engaged in manufacturing, and the machinery need not be directly used in manufacture. However, rental income from milk parlours is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) as they are not godowns or warehouses.
The Tribunal held that the share issue expenses were not eligible for amortization under Section 35D as they were not for public subscription or business expansion. The Tribunal also noted that such expenses are generally considered capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the share issue expenses were not allowable under Section 35D as the shares were not issued for public subscription or for business expansion. The Tribunal also noted that such expenses are generally considered capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that an agreement to sell an immovable property does not constitute a transfer under the Income Tax Act, as title only passes upon registration of the sale deed. Therefore, capital gains cannot be assessed in the year of the agreement to sell.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparable companies by the DRP in the software development segment. It also directed the AO to grant TDS credit to the assessee upon verification.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not justified if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.