Loading ITAT cases…
201 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, making a plausible assessment. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met, and the PCIT's order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the agreement was in the nature of a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it allowed the exclusion of the cost of land and expenses for approvals from the TDS calculation.
The Tribunal held that the agreement was in the nature of a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it allowed the exclusion of the cost of land and expenses for approvals from the TDS calculation.
The Tribunal held that the agreement was in the nature of a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it allowed the exclusion of the cost of land and expenses for approvals from the TDS calculation.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was part of a commercial transaction for discharging corporate guarantees and acquiring trademarks, not a personal loan. Therefore, it did not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend as per Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the agreement was in the nature of a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it allowed the exclusion of the cost of land and expenses for approvals from the TDS calculation.
The Tribunal held that the gratuity remeasurement loss was recorded in 'Other Comprehensive Income' and not in the 'Profit Before Tax' used for computing taxable income. Therefore, no disallowance could be made on this count.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was part of a commercial transaction for discharging corporate guarantees and acquiring trademarks, not a personal loan. Therefore, it did not fall under the ambit of deemed dividend as per Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the agreement constituted a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it accepted an alternative argument that the cost of land and certain approval expenses should be excluded from TDS calculation.
The Tribunal held that the agreement was in the nature of a works contract, making the society liable for TDS. However, it allowed the exclusion of the cost of land and expenses for approvals from the TDS calculation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2008-09 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on turnover and profit margins, and the inclusion of others based on previous tribunal decisions regarding related party transactions and functional comparability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets given under finance lease, following previous High Court and Tribunal rulings. For interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider LIBOR + 2% as the appropriate interest rate, treating it as an international transaction.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the computation of interest on receivables, considering the Master Service Agreement's credit period and the debtors' holding period of comparables versus the assessee. It also directed verification of foreign exchange gain/loss treatment in margin computations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2008-09 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on turnover and profit margins, and the inclusion of others based on previous tribunal decisions regarding related party transactions and functional comparability.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 14A read with Rule 8D for calculating the disallowance. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-examination and re-verification.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are 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.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is entitled to deduction if payments are made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 and denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The assessee's activities of rendering certification services for fees were considered to be outside the scope of charitable purposes due to the proviso to Section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 because the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of requisite enquiry. The AO failed to verify the nature of the provision and its treatment in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable as the legislative amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, and the CBDT's Memorandum of Explanation, clarifying the provisions, were applicable prospectively from 1.4.2021. The Tribunal relied on a Hyderabad Bench decision and the prospective nature of the amendments.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not sustainable. It noted that the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification regarding these provisions were prospective and applicable from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the PCIT under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is not an appealable order before the ITAT under Section 253 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to international transactions with AEs, allowing the assessee's ground regarding the scope of adjustment. It also remitted the issue of re-computation of operating profit margin pursuant to a MAP resolution back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the interest expense disallowance needed further verification by the Assessing Officer. For manpower costs, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 50% of the disputed amount.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction, and the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify if the payees offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction, and the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective. For TDS disallowance, if the payee has offered the income to tax, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable, and the matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 and denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The assessee's activities of rendering certification services for fees were considered to be outside the scope of charitable purposes due to the proviso to Section 2(15).
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the grounds related to transfer pricing as they were covered under the UAPA. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow TDS credit as per the DRP's directions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based solely on uncorroborated entries in an Excel sheet retrieved from a third party's computer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee denied the transactions, and the third party also denied knowing the assessee, rendering the seized material insufficient to sustain the additions.
The Tribunal held that interest on investments derived by the assessee is chargeable under Section 56 of the Act, not Section 28. It also upheld the disallowance of provisions made by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for interest on the refund withheld until the date of issue. It further directed the AO to compute the interest on the shortfall amount under Section 244A(1A).
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) for AY 2018-19 was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.