Loading ITAT cases…
201 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and a previous ITAT order in Bangalore Development Authority.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and a previous ITAT order in Bangalore Development Authority.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and a previous ITAT order in Bangalore Development Authority.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and a previous ITAT order in Bangalore Development Authority.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and a previous ITAT order in Bangalore Development Authority.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment should be computed and allowed based on actuals, considering the OECD guidelines. It also noted that the Revenue has powers to compel production of details from comparable companies if public domain information is insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not adequately proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for both unsecured loans and share application money. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were business transactions undertaken due to business exigencies between group companies with running accounts, and not for individual benefit, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e). The issue of interest received under Section 244A was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following a previous decision where it was held that a proportionate premium on redemption of debentures is not allowable as a deduction if the liability has not crystallized and the genuineness of the transaction is not proven. The conditions for redemption were not met within the relevant accounting year.
The Tribunal held that outstanding trade receivables should be considered in light of working capital adjustments and the impact on the assessee's working capital. It also directed the AO to consider claims for set-off of brought forward losses, MAT credit, and foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including a valuation report, and that the tax on the premium had been paid by the investor as capital gains.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities had not considered the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider the claim in light of various High Court and Tribunal decisions, with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained deposits to the AO for fresh consideration with directions for the assessee to prove the source of each deposit. For the difference in Form 26AS, the AO was directed to consider only 8% net profit on the impugned turnover.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed remittance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI is incorrect if paid before the due date of 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 held that TDS credit should be given in accordance with Section 199 read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. The issue was remitted back to the AO for verification and appropriate credit.
The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities had not considered the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider the claim in light of various High Court and Tribunal decisions, with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether reimbursements for seconded employees constitute FTS is complex and has been subject to various judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and not sustainable in law. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the assessment order was annulled.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not verified whether the necessary sanction under Section 151 was obtained. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for examination and adjudication.
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 eligible for deduction. The recent amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
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 eligible for deduction. The recent amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo verification, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer. The revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the AO to verify the additional evidence admitted by the CIT(A) without a remand report.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent on identical facts, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo verification. The AO was directed to redo the assessment, disregarding the PCIT's observations and adhering to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
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 amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was not applicable retrospectively.
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 amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as being in default for non-remittance of TDS if the payees have included the income in their returns and paid the tax. Regarding the pre-EMI interest, the Tribunal ruled that the buyer is primarily responsible for the interest, and the assessee acting as an agent for the buyer is not liable for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on trade receivables should be decided in conformity with previous judgments, allowing a credit period of 90 days. If the interest is subsumed in the working capital adjustment, no further disallowance should be made. Other grounds regarding set-off of losses, MAT credit, foreign tax credit, interest, and penalty were directed to be considered by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments were quashed.
The Tribunal, following its own previous orders, decided to remit the issues related to deductions under sections 10B and 10AA, and additional depreciation back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The claim under section 80-IB(8A) was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified as the AO had conducted proper inquiries and made a conscious decision. The CIT's revisionary powers were exercised without adequate reasons and amounted to a roving inquiry.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and L&T Infotech Ltd. from the comparable list. It also allowed working capital adjustment and directed the AO to re-examine the credit under Section 115JAA.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not have considered the claim for deduction under Section 80IA as it did not arise from the Section 154 rectification order that was the subject of the appeal. The assessee should have appealed against the original assessment order for that claim.
The Tribunal held that the waived loan amount was utilized for capital expenditure, specifically for the purchase of computer software and advance to a subsidiary for share acquisition. Therefore, the waiver constituted a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt exigible to tax.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons and supporting documents to explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on NCDs to the AE was at arm's length, deleting the TP adjustment. It also deleted disallowances related to salary expenses and depreciation on pre-operative expenses, finding that these amounts were capitalized and no depreciation was claimed in the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified as the assessee had substantially complied with the filing of Form 26A, and the payee had accounted for the interest and paid taxes. The procedural lapse of not filing electronically to DGIT(Systems) should not deny the substantial benefit.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified as the assessee had substantially complied with the filing of Form 26A, and the payee had accounted for the interest and paid taxes. Procedural lapses should not deny substantial benefits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), finding the assessee's explanation of awaiting a response to a rectification application as a bonafide and reasonable cause. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of working capital adjustment and interest on outstanding receivables to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for re-determination, directing them to consider proper adjustments and industry norms. The issue regarding deduction under Section 10AA was also remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on NCDs to the AE was at arm's length, deleting the TP adjustment. It also deleted disallowances related to salary expenses and depreciation on pre-operative expenses, finding that these amounts were capitalized and no depreciation was claimed in the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on NCDs to the AE was at arm's length, deleting the TP adjustment. It also deleted disallowances related to salary expenses and depreciation on pre-operative expenses, finding that these amounts were capitalized and no depreciation was claimed in the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on NCDs to the AE was at arm's length, deleting the TP adjustment. It also deleted disallowances related to salary expenses and depreciation on pre-operative expenses, finding that these amounts were capitalized and no depreciation was claimed in the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal agreed that filing Form 10CCB before assessment or processing under Section 143(1) is crucial for Section 80IA deduction. However, the assessee failed to prove the digital filing of the form with the revised return.
The Tribunal noted that the evidence filed by the assessee was not considered by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the claim in light of relevant High Court and Tribunal decisions, after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a waiver of liability, not just a payment in subsequent years. The AO's invocation of Section 41(1) was not appropriate without considering actual repayments made by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. It found that the assessee was not properly served with the intimation or proposal for adjustment, thus justifying condonation of delay.