Loading ITAT cases…
199 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to J&P Coats Ltd. for bandwidth charges could not be taxed in India as they did not constitute income under the DTAA or the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that although the adjustment was made based on the audit report at the time of filing the return, the subsequent payment of GST before the extended due date for filing the return of income should not attract disallowance under Section 43B. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of the payment.
The Tribunal is hearing an appeal from Bosch Limited concerning various disallowances and adjustments made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The specific grounds of appeal relate to deductions, interest expenditure, capital gains, weighted deductions, disallowance under Section 14A, and transfer pricing adjustments.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not examine the evidence regarding the source of the gift due to contradictory explanations. The Tribunal found that the availability of sources with the father-in-law at the time of the gift was crucial and the evidence had not been examined. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal decided to exclude certain comparable companies like Mind Tree Ltd. and directed the AO/TPO to reconsider the inclusion of Melstar Information Technologies Ltd. based on specific tribunal rulings. Adjustments for working capital were also directed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had a valid 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment based on information from the investigation wing and seized documents. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 valid.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. For transfer pricing, the addition was restricted to 0.50%. Certain disallowances for commission and expenditure under Section 14A were deleted. The issue of obsolete inventory was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified 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 not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the advances were made out of the company's own funds (reserves and share capital) and not from borrowed working capital. Therefore, no interest disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee, a licensed distributor, for promoting its products in the ordinary course of business, without an agreement with its Associated Enterprise (AE) for brand development, are not international transactions. The Tribunal also held that expenses incurred for refurbishing retail showrooms to make them attractive for customers are revenue in nature, following its earlier decision.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the AO's turnover determination and the non-admission of income from land owned by the assessee's father. Given the disputed land ownership and the AO's acceptance of similar claims in other years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the AO's turnover determination and the non-admission of income from land owned by the assessee's father. Given the disputed land ownership and the AO's acceptance of similar claims in other years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied for the assessment year in question because the due date for filing the return had not expired at the time of the search, and the assessee had filed the return subsequently. Therefore, the penalty was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to J&P Coats Ltd. for bandwidth charges could not be taxed in India as they did not constitute income under the DTAA or the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the AO's turnover determination and the non-admission of income from land owned by the assessee's father. Given the disputed land ownership and the AO's acceptance of similar claims in other years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that there was no agreement between the assessee and its associated enterprise (AE) to incur AMP expenses. Following its own previous decisions in identical cases, the Tribunal ruled that the AMP expenses could not be treated as an international transaction, and thus no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. For transfer pricing, the addition was restricted to 0.50%. Certain disallowances for commission and expenditure under Section 14A were deleted. The issue of obsolete inventory was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The ITAT admitted additional evidence regarding hire charges and restored the issue to the AO for re-examination. For service tax, the ITAT remitted the issue to the AO to verify if the service tax was collected from customers but not remitted to the government.
The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan by the brother was confirmed by both parties, and despite some confusion in the explanation of sources, the overall sources for the deposit were explained within the family members. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the issue of loans to subsidiary companies requires examination by the AO to determine if they were for business purposes, restoring this issue to the AO. Similarly, the apportionment of interest to the ongoing project 'Splendour' also requires re-examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already included the house property income and commission income in its gross receipts. Therefore, making separate adjustments for these incomes would lead to double assessment. The adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were liable to be deleted.
The ITAT admitted additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The ITAT admitted additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that management fees should be considered as part of a composite transaction and remanded the issue for fresh examination. It also ruled that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover for Section 10A calculations and directed the AO to allow depreciation on software expenses.
The ITAT admitted additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reinstated credit balance of Rs. 13,00,000, which was previously offered as income, should be allowed as a business expenditure. However, the write-off of FBT and IT refunds were confirmed as disallowed.
The Tribunal held that interest on deferred receivables constitutes an independent international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. However, it directed that the interest rate should be LIBOR + 2%.
The Tribunal held that the borrowed funds were used for the purpose of business through its subsidiaries, considering the company's objects and commercial expediency. Therefore, the interest paid on borrowings is deductible.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The ITAT admitted additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000. The issues on merits were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated based on material already available during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated based on material already available during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are eligible for deduction, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained books of account, the explanation for the cash deposit should be based on those books. An opportunity was granted to the assessee to produce the books of account before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a statement showing cash withdrawals preceding the deposits. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh consideration of the assessee's explanation regarding withdrawals as the source of deposits.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for indexed cost of improvement, finding no doubt about the genuineness of the payment. It also allowed the carry forward of loss, noting the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10AA should be computed on the assessed income, not the returned income. Other grounds were either accepted or directed for consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated based on material already available during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that management fees should be considered as part of a composite transaction and remanded the issue for fresh examination. It also ruled that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover for Section 10A calculations and directed the AO to allow depreciation on software expenses.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was capital in nature and upheld the AO's action, while directing allowance of appropriate depreciation. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for foreign exchange loss on restatement of trade receivables and payables, following a coordinate bench decision. Grounds related to salary advance were allowed for statistical purposes, pending verification by the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 80JJAA deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Texas Instruments India P Ltd. The High Court held that software engineers can be considered 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, provided they are not in supervisory roles.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land transaction income was cryptic and required fresh examination of all related documents and statements. The revenue's appeal regarding protective additions was also remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land transaction income was cryptic and required fresh examination of all related documents and statements. The revenue's appeal regarding protective additions was also remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land transaction income was cryptic and required fresh examination of all related documents and statements. The revenue's appeal regarding protective additions was also remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's mother was unwell, it did not entirely prevent the assessee from attending to tax matters. However, to provide an opportunity for a fresh hearing, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land transaction income was cryptic and required fresh examination of all related documents and statements. The revenue's appeal regarding protective additions was also remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land transaction income was cryptic and required fresh examination of all related documents and statements. The revenue's appeal regarding protective additions was also remitted for fresh consideration.