Loading ITAT cases…
199 orders · Page 2 of 4
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 held that goodwill amortization, arising from a slump sale acquisition, is an extraordinary item and should be excluded from operating expenses for benchmarking purposes. The Assessing Officer's rejection of the assessee's valuation report was also found unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. 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 amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. 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 held that credit for TDS should be given if the corresponding income has been offered to tax, even if in a different year. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the income offered to tax and grant TDS credit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) 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 for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given if the corresponding income has been offered to tax, even if in a different year. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the income offered to tax and grant TDS credit accordingly.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal and remitted them to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The main grounds raised by the assessee were kept open.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision allowing depreciation on investments held to maturity, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The Tribunal also allowed bad debts relating to non-rural branches without adjustment against provision for rural advances.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the donation issue needed reconsideration in light of the 80G certificate. It also allowed the deduction for the cooperative education fund and member welfare fund as business expenditure. Crucially, it allowed the deduction for provision on rural advances, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal, following its own precedents, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition was restricted to the unrecovered amount.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the lack of a condonation petition should not be fatal without giving the assessee an opportunity to cure the defect. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) to grant such an opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the TPO/AO erred in not properly considering the invoice-wise details of receivable realization and in estimating interest on delayed receivables. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the deposit as cash withdrawals made from his bank accounts prior to demonetisation. The Tribunal found no evidence that the withdrawn cash was spent, thus accepting the explanation.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income. For the commission and journal payments, the tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with additional evidence. The compounding fee was partly confirmed for disallowance (penalty charges) and partly remitted for examination (development charges).
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, held that the adjustment should be restricted to the extent of commission borne by the assessee and not recovered from the AE. The addition made by the TPO and upheld by the CIT(A) for the unrecovered portion was confirmed.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income. For the commission and journal payments, the tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with additional evidence. The compounding fee was partly confirmed for disallowance (penalty charges) and partly remitted for examination (development charges).
The Tribunal restored the issue of computing the operating margin for the manufacturing segment to the AO/TPO for re-examination. It also restored the issue of HQ charges to the TPO with directions for the assessee to submit documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present her case before the AO. The time gap between the gift receipt and deposit, and the assessee's non-resident status, require further examination.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made in compliance with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act should be considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record to warrant rectification proceedings under section 154. The assessee had provided details during the original assessment, and the internal audit's objections were based on presumptions.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year under consideration. 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 CIT(Appeals) erred in relying on decisions that required 'incriminating material' for section 153C proceedings, as this term is not explicitly in the section. The Tribunal also noted the differing factual matrix compared to the cited Calcutta Knitwears case regarding the AO's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowance of vehicle lease rentals, holding that lease rental payments are allowable as expenditure for the lessee. It also directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 10A as per law, irrespective of the amount claimed by the assessee. The issue of disallowance of provision for sub-contracting expenses was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue of MTM losses to the AO for verification of its nature. It directed the AO to allow deduction for legal and professional charges in the year TDS was deducted and deleted the disallowance of depreciation on software. The AO was also directed to correctly compute Section 10A deduction and allow enhanced deduction if disallowances increased eligible profits.
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the assessee's books of accounts to verify the source of the deposits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored issues regarding contradictory computation sheets and dividend distribution tax to the AO for verification. It also directed the AO to delete the disallowance under Section 115BBD as the assessee did not receive dividend income. The claim for TDS credit was also restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal decided that the issue of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) liability could not be raised as an additional ground in the current appeal and remitted it to the AO for fresh consideration. Other grounds were also addressed, with the appeal being partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO failed to examine the valuation of assets and the claim for depreciation on goodwill. However, the PCIT's view that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable was considered an indirect direction that could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained and lacked bonafide effort. Condonation of delay is an exception and requires reasonable and acceptable explanations, which were absent in this case.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is eligible for deduction. The recent amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in relying on decisions that required 'incriminating material' for section 153C proceedings, as this term is not explicitly in the section. The Tribunal also noted the differing factual matrix compared to the cited Calcutta Knitwears case regarding the AO's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining ALP was identical to its previous decisions and that the TPO's rejection of TNMM was not justified. Regarding DDT, the Tribunal noted that the issue of treaty rate applicability was under consideration by a Special Bench and remanded the matter.
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. The issue of short credit of TDS was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution towards ESIC paid by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
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 for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.