Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) should be OP/Sales, following its own prior ruling. It also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments must be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), not the entire segment including non-AE transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's bona fide belief and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal also ruled in favour of the assessee on the merits regarding the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid within the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the provision for leave encashment is not an unascertained liability and should not be disallowed under Section 43B. It also directed the exclusion of warranty and leave encashment provisions from book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) should be OP/Sales, following its own prior ruling. It also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments must be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), not the entire segment including non-AE transactions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from the liability under Section 201. However, if TDS is deducted in the succeeding year when payments are made, the demand under Section 201(1) is liable to be cancelled, but interest under Section 201(1A) is still payable.
The Tribunal found that the inconsistent characterization of the assessee's business by the TPO needed verification. The issue of deferred receivables was also remanded for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the forfeited share warrant amount is a revenue receipt. It also rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80IA due to failure to establish a separate undertaking. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was confirmed as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving non-exigibility to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay as they were actively pursuing rectification applications. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's age and medical condition. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that forfeited share warrants are revenue receipts. It also rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80IA due to the failure to establish a separate undertaking. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving non-exigibility to tax in India.
The Tribunal held that forfeited share warrants are revenue receipts. It also rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80IA due to the failure to establish a separate undertaking. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving non-exigibility to tax in India.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was revenue neutral due to the time elapsed and the rate of tax remaining the same. Therefore, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that carbon credit receipts are capital in nature and not taxable as revenue. Consequently, they should also be excluded for the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous year, the Tribunal had relied on certain clauses of the assessee's Memorandum of Association while overlooking others. For the interest of justice, the issue was remitted to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee accepted the additions in quantum proceedings because he was misled by the tax consultant. However, the penalty proceedings did not adequately consider this. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(Appeals) to determine if the tax consultant was solely responsible for the fraudulent refund and if the assessee's actions were bonafide.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay as they were actively pursuing rectification applications. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in the Biocon Limited case held that discount on ESOP is an allowable deduction spread over the vesting period. However, since the assessee did not provide the ESOP plan details, the matter was restored to the AO to decide in line with the High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that forfeited share warrants are revenue receipts. It also rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80IA due to the failure to establish a separate undertaking. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving non-exigibility to tax in India.
The Tribunal held that the issue of claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is settled by the Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee. It also directed the AO to provide consequential relief regarding MAT credit based on earlier years' orders.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained jewellery was not sustainable as the assessee had already disclosed jewellery in its balance sheet. However, the addition on account of unexplained cash was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained jewellery was not sustainable as the assessee had already disclosed jewellery in its balance sheet. However, the addition on account of unexplained cash was sustained.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 47,95,000/- related to opening capital as it pertained to a prior assessment year. It also deleted part of the addition related to cash deposits (Rs. 6,90,000/-) but confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,56,800/- for which no evidence was provided.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The recent amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
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 eligible for deduction. 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 the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not confronting evidence with the AO regarding cash credits, and restored the issue to the AO. The loss from distribution was also restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not retrospective in nature for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of product development expenses, following a coordinate bench decision. The issue of unreconciled TDS and ad-hoc disallowances for housekeeping/other expenses were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the issue of writing off advances received from customers and corresponding work in progress requires fresh examination. The assessee needs to provide a detailed breakdown of advances received and materials supplied to each customer for reconciliation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the issue under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit is mandatory for the AO's jurisdiction. Since the notice was issued late, the assessment order was deemed bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of interest on outstanding receivables needed to be revisited. It referred to various High Court and Tribunal decisions, emphasizing the need to consider the impact on working capital and whether receivables constitute an international transaction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. 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 disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the share transactions and the source of investment. While statements from third parties are secondary evidence, the assessee did not discharge their onus to prove the market-driven nature of price fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) did not constitute a transfer of immovable property under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The reasoning was based on the specific clauses of the JDA, particularly clauses 3.1 and 3.2. Clause 3.1 explicitly stated that the owner permits the developer to enter as a licensee and develop the property, and that the owner shall retain ownership of the property until conveyed to purchasers. Clause 3.2 further clarified that the owner grants permission to enter as a licensee and explicitly stated that the owner does not intend to part with possession in favor of the developer. The Tribunal found that the possession given to the developer was permissive possession and not 'legal possession' as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since the essential ingredient of possession being transferred in part performance of an agreement for sale, as required by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, was not met, Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act was not attracted. Therefore, the capital gains assessed in the hands of the assessee were liable to be deleted. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s view regarding the adjustment of non-rural bad debts against provisions under Section 36(1)(viia) was not legally correct. The Tribunal also restored the issue of Section 115JB applicability and specific additions to book profit back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the share purchases and the source of investment. While the assessee argued for cross-examination of third parties, the Tribunal considered such statements as secondary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the issue of treating profit from sale of shares as business income instead of capital gains was already decided by a previous Tribunal order and could not be agitated again. However, the Tribunal allowed the professional charges as a deductible expense for computing capital gains, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of loans and advances where the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the transactions. However, the disallowance of the opening cash balance was deleted. The additional ground regarding gifts was dismissed for lack of proper explanation of the relationship.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the share transactions and the source of investment. While statements from third parties are secondary evidence, the assessee did not discharge their onus to prove the market-driven nature of price fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the share transactions and the source of investment. While statements from third parties are secondary evidence, the assessee did not discharge their onus to prove the market-driven nature of price fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that if the employee and employer contributions to ESI and EPF are paid on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, the deduction is allowable, even if paid after the due dates prescribed by the respective ESI and EPF Acts.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the interest earned on investments made in cooperative societies eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO is directed to consider the claim in accordance with Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal remanded the issues concerning the treatment of total receipts as application of money versus diversion at source to the AO for fresh consideration. Issues related to prior period expenses and brought forward losses/depreciation were also remanded for a speaking order.