Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether lease rentals should be assessed as business income or income from house property was not properly examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case regarding the penalty. Therefore, the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have compared the Registered Valuer Report submitted by the assessee with the DVO's report. The matter was sent back to the AO for a fresh assessment after comparing these reports and giving the assessee an opportunity to explain any discrepancies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to a potential lack of proper hearing notice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that while the explanation for the entire Rs. 8,50,000 was not fully substantiated, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 could be considered explained as a gift from the assessee's mother. Therefore, the addition was partly sustained.
The Tribunal held that income from revenue share fees from food and beverage and retail outlets, as well as other income like tender fees and interest on deposits, are derived from the assessee's business of operating an airport and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal also held that concession fees paid to the Government are not in the nature of tax, duty, cess, or fee, and therefore, disallowance under Section 43B is not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrated the assessee's agricultural operations and her claimed agricultural income was not disbelieved by the revenue. The absence of specific sale proceeds evidence was not fatal given the nature of the business.
The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of the lenders was sufficiently explained by the documents submitted, including ITRs and bank statements. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided evidence of ownership and use of assets for business purposes, entitling it to depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the royalty adjustment was not justified as the foreign AEs only marketed products and did not exploit any product registration/license obtained by the assessee. The Tribunal also directed the AO to pass a speaking order on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G, as the assessee had no opportunity to contest it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions related to sundry creditors, capital introduction, and ad-hoc expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and that the CIT(Appeals) had properly examined the details.
The Tribunal held that income from revenue share fees from food and beverage and retail outlets, as well as other income like tender fees and interest on deposits, are derived from the assessee's business of airport operations and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The concession fee paid to the Government was not considered a tax, duty, cess, or fee, and thus not disallowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty is an allowable expenditure as it was created on a scientific basis using historical data and accepted by the Tribunal in previous assessment years. The Tribunal also directed that the incidental ground regarding book profits under section 115JB is dismissed in light of the decision on warranty provision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's power to rework book profits under Section 115JB is limited to the adjustments specified in the Explanation to that section. The AO cannot go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except as provided. The assessee's consent or concession does not confer jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal modified its earlier order to correct an inadvertent error. It held that the PLI should be computed as gross profit on sales, following its own previous decisions for the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the assessee had failed to disclose material facts fully and truly concerning the sale of its division. However, on merits, the Tribunal remanded the issues related to sales tax, club membership, and write-off of advances back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to produce supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid renewal of approvals for Section 10B claims, vacating the CIT(A)'s finding. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance but capped it at the amount of exempt income, allowing the ground with this observation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's power to rework book profits under Section 115JB is limited to the adjustments specified in the Explanation to that section. The AO cannot go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except as provided. The assessee's consent or concession does not confer jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50 lakh was confirmed based on the MD's admission during the survey and subsequent sworn statement, despite the DVO's report being rejected on a preliminary objection. The appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 were allowed, while the appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50 lakh was confirmed based on the MD's admission during the survey and subsequent sworn statement, despite the DVO's report being rejected on a preliminary objection. The appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 were allowed, while the appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's power to rework book profits under Section 115JB is limited to the adjustments specified in the Explanation to that section. The AO cannot go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except as provided. The assessee's consent or concession does not confer jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for software development services due to an apparent mistake in the margin of a comparable company. For the bad debts provision, the disallowance was deleted to the extent of Rs. 16,25,897/- as it was previously disallowed and offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the application of an upper turnover filter for comparable companies is justified. It also directed that working capital adjustments should be allowed and that the interest on outstanding receivables needs to be benchmarked after providing an opportunity of being heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) is applicable only when a return is filed and a deduction is not claimed therein, not when no return is filed. Section 80AC also did not cover Section 80P deductions. Therefore, the denial of deduction was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the issue of granting TCS credit required fresh examination by the AO, considering the pending application for transfer of the excise license. The AO was directed to ensure the revenue's interest is protected.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in income schedules required examination by the AO, considering the Brought Forward Loss Adjustment (BFLA). It also held that denial of foreign tax credit solely based on late filing of Form 67 was not justified, as it's a procedural requirement.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50 lakh was confirmed based on the MD's admission during the survey and subsequent sworn statement, despite the DVO's report being rejected on a preliminary objection. The appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 were allowed, while the appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessee had genuine reasons for not being able to represent itself. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to sponsorship and promotion expenses, following the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories Ltd. regarding the prohibition of 'freebees'. However, for transfer pricing matters, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish segmental details and ensuring due opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the AO committed a procedural lapse in not fully disposing of the assessee's objections, this did not render the assessment order void or non-est. Following Supreme Court precedent, such procedural irregularities can be cured.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed on gross receipts before considering other deductions or accumulations. The AO's computation method was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A for the delayed refund, as the delay was not attributable to the assessee's fault. The issue was restored to the AO for a decision in accordance with law.
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 by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law as they were based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, without any new material. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the TPO made the adjustment based on the mistaken premise that the assessee used the CUP method, when it actually used TNMM. The Tribunal also noted that coordinate benches had previously accepted the assessee's internal benchmarking for earlier years and the TPO had accepted it for AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal found that the conditions for revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method, as per the ICAI Guidance Note, were not fully met. Specifically, the condition regarding the saleable project area secured by contracts was not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions to create a bogus short-term capital loss with the sole motive of tax evasion. The Tribunal found the transactions to be beyond human probabilities and upheld the disallowance of the capital loss.
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 an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in cancelling the registration based on pending appeals before the High Court and materials from a subsequent search. The Tribunal restored the registration granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective, effective from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment year 2018-19 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on leasehold improvements should be remanded to the AO for fresh verification of additions made during the year, considering the date the assets were put to use. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments and depreciation on computer peripherals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the provision for loss on onerous contracts, finding it to be a valid provision for an ascertained liability. However, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee opts for assessment under Section 44AD, additions under Section 68/69A for unexplained bank deposits are generally not permissible. However, the Tribunal also noted that not all income might fall under Section 44AD and directed the AO to re-examine the issue with specific directions.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the cash credit, following a precedent that such deposits from admitted sales should not be taxed again, preventing double taxation. However, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of non-agricultural income from the claimed agricultural income was upheld due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in not entertaining the assessee's claim. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination, considering the legal contentions regarding the taxability of compensation for compulsory land acquisition.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds and evidence, noting they were not considered by the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on these new grounds and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the advances were in the nature of capital investment and not trading advances. Therefore, the write-off could not be claimed as a business expenditure or bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 13 days was short and the explanation provided constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the revenue has not denied the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, is allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.