Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 4 of 5
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, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case had held similar grants as capital receipts and not taxable. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list based on functional comparability and turnover. It also ruled that delivery charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover. The 5% standard deduction under Section 92C(2) was denied as the amendment was effective from October 1, 2009, and the assessment years predated this.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of bad debts written off, following its own prior ruling. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The CIT(A) condoned a mistake in the presentation of accounts regarding stock valuation and identified 'Iron ore fines' as raw material instead of a 'bye-product' as claimed by the assessee. The tribunal is reviewing the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that a corporate guarantee commission of 0.50% is at arm's length, as per previous judgments. Since the assessee charged 0.60% from its associated enterprise, which is higher than the accepted arm's length rate, the adjustment made by the tax authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, directed the exclusion of all five comparable companies (Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., and Kals Information Systems Ltd.) from the list of comparables. The TPO was directed to recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list based on functional comparability and turnover. It also ruled that delivery charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover. The 5% standard deduction under Section 92C(2) was denied as the amendment was effective from October 1, 2009, and the assessment years predated this.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the difference was due to simple journal entry mistakes that were rectified. The reconciliation provided by the assessee proved that it was a matter of accounting reconciliation, not unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid before the return filing due date is allowable, and the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective. The award received was not considered exempt under Section 10(17A) as it was not instituted in public interest. The TDS credit issue was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding DDT, referencing various High Court and Tribunal decisions. It also upheld the exclusion of two comparable companies, M/s. Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd. and M/s. ICC International Agencies Ltd., as functionally dissimilar.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of the difference in the cost of construction cannot be made without referring the matter to the DVO as prescribed under Section 142A of the Act. The assessee's own valuer's report cannot be the basis for such an addition.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding DDT, referencing various High Court and Tribunal decisions. It also upheld the exclusion of two comparable companies, M/s. Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd. and M/s. ICC International Agencies Ltd., as functionally dissimilar.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)-I order was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore void ab initio. The appeal was set aside and the correct jurisdictional CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list based on functional comparability and turnover. It also ruled that delivery charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover. The 5% standard deduction under Section 92C(2) was denied as the amendment was effective from October 1, 2009, and the assessment years predated this.
The Tribunal decided that 'education cess' is an additional surcharge and part of income tax, thus not deductible, following the Supreme Court ruling. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list based on functional comparability and turnover. It also ruled that delivery charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover. The 5% standard deduction under Section 92C(2) was denied as the amendment was effective from October 1, 2009, and the assessment years predated this.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by CGTM France did not satisfy the 'make available' condition as the assessee could not independently utilize the technical knowledge or skills after the contract ended. Therefore, the payments were not considered FTS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, even if paid after the due date prescribed by the respective PF/ESIC Acts.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF/ESI is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable, even if it is beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The CIT(A) had previously decided the income should be assessed in the HUF's hands based on the ongoing appeal for the HUF, without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B 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, employees' contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee explicitly requested to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income. Regarding the BWSSB deposit, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification of prior year taxation. The Section 80G deduction issue was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court judgment which held that payments for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal noted that the same officer granted Section 12AA registration a day prior, making the refusal for Section 80G inconsistent. It held that the commencement of activities is not a prerequisite for 80G approval and restored the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income. Regarding the BWSSB deposit, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification of prior year taxation. The Section 80G deduction issue was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest on a loan for commercial property construction can only be deducted if the property is ready to be let out, and the assessee failed to provide evidence of this readiness. Therefore, the interest should be capitalized to the cost of the building.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they are allowable as a deduction under Section 43B, even if paid after the due date stipulated by the respective Acts. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 are 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 of income under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
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 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not retrospective in nature and thus not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without the approval of the competent authority as required by Section 115WH(4). Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was bad in law.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's ground regarding the calculation of interest under Section 234C. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding excess advance tax payments and grant relief accordingly.
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice by the CIT(Appeals) for not admitting additional evidence and not providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
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 additions made for the assessment year 2018-19 deserve to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective PF/ESI Acts. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that transactions of mere reimbursement of third-party vendor expenses, where AEs do not add value, should not attract a markup. The issue of extending credit facilities due to delayed reimbursements was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue was covered by a Supreme Court decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis, finding them not functionally similar to the assessee. However, it allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on purchased software, holding that the purchase did not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) as there was no commercial exploitation.
The Tribunal held that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment year under consideration. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same issue already considered and accepted in the original assessment, without any new material, constitutes a 'change of opinion' and is not permissible. The CSR expenditure was found to be voluntary and incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently paid 15% interest to partners, which was accepted by the department in previous assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the AO was not justified in disturbing this practice.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses of a non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the profits of an eligible unit claiming deduction under Section 10A. The deduction under Section 10A is in the nature of exemption and the income of the eligible unit should be excluded at source before arriving at the gross total income.
The Tribunal held that salary due is taxable as per Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of whether it is paid or not. However, the exact amount due within permissible limits was not determinable from the records.
The tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of payments to freelancers back to the AO for verification of details to determine if the services fall under FTS or Independent Personal Services. The tribunal also directed the AO to grant credit for brought forward losses and consider the provision for future losses and unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with law.
The tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of payments to freelancers back to the AO for verification of details to determine if the services fall under FTS or Independent Personal Services. The tribunal also directed the AO to grant credit for brought forward losses and consider the provision for future losses and unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with law.
The assessee's appeal was allowed to be withdrawn based on the MAP resolution. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue was covered by a Supreme Court decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that transactions of mere reimbursement of third-party vendor expenses, where AEs do not add value, should not attract a markup. The issue of extending credit facilities due to delayed reimbursements was remanded for fresh examination.