Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal, in principle, agreed with the assessee regarding the deductibility of ESOP expenses, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Biocon Ltd. However, the issue of ESOP expenses was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS compliance.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for scrap sales to be a make-believe story due to the lack of evidence regarding buyers and scrap generation. However, it directed the AO to exclude the scrap sales and related expenses from the Profit and Loss account before making additions.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for scrap sales to be a make-believe story due to the lack of evidence regarding buyers and scrap generation. However, it directed the AO to exclude the scrap sales and related expenses from the Profit and Loss account before making additions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO's failure to conduct a thorough inquiry into the Section 80JJAA deduction made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The ITAT held that the AO failed to conduct a proper investigation into the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, considering the circumstances. The tribunal found that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not follow the due process and did not give due regard to the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for necessary verification and consideration in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO's failure to conduct a thorough inquiry into the Section 80JJAA deduction made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the premium paid should not be taxed and that TDS was deducted on the gross amount. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider only the net amount for taxation, provided the assessee had not claimed deductions under Section 80C or Section 10(10D) for the premium paid.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of interest on customs duty depends on the nature of the levy. It also directed the AO to grant consequential relief on deferred revenue based on a coordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) accepted the cash receipts as sale proceeds but made additions based on demonetized notes. It held that adding these deposits under Section 68 would amount to double taxation if sales were already offered for income.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 10AA needs to be re-examined by the AO in light of Supreme Court conditions. The issue of premium on option contracts and forex losses was also remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it, thus setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on that ground. However, regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal followed a Delhi High Court judgment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that advance fees, even if used for expenditures, should not be treated as income for the current year if they relate to future academic periods. The accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed on gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the source of cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to examine the correctness of the balance sheet before rejecting the assessee's claims. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting it, especially if a rectification petition was pending. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay if the rectification petition was indeed pending.
The Tribunal held that if the delay in filing the return is condoned by the competent authority, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under Section 80P. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of not being given an opportunity justified as the adjournment petition was not considered. Therefore, the case was remitted to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that if a provision is made but no payment is required as the liability has not crystallized, then there is no liability to deduct tax at source. However, due to lack of clarity on the waiver letter and the status of subsequent provisions/reversals, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding foreign exchange loss, following its own prior decision. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for 'Other Liabilities' by the DRP, finding that a substantial portion of these liabilities were evidenced and could not be termed bogus.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued only one notice during the pandemic and the assessee was unable to utilize the opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2019-2020. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as the notice was issued within the prescribed time limit. The issue regarding the determination of sale consideration as per Section 50C was still under consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made from surplus funds is taxable under 'income from other sources' and not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Regarding the demonetization deposit, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient details of the members who made the deposits, hence the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) was not fulfilled as the debt was not included in the computation of income. The Tribunal further held that the forfeiture of the unutilized amount occurred in AY 2011-12 as per the agreement, not in AY 2013-14 or 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer's reasoning for levying penalty based on the previous year's closing balance was found to be irrelevant for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the claim for bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) was not fulfilled as the debt was not included in the computation of income. The Tribunal further held that the forfeiture of the unutilized amount occurred in AY 2011-12 as per the agreement, not in AY 2013-14 or 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 can be issued even if the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not expired, provided there are reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the proceedings was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act could not be entertained as a fresh claim before the CIT(A) without it being raised in the return of income. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration based on specific provisions of the KIAD Act and RFCTLARR Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue of interest income from investments in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that Section 50B of the Income Tax Act mandates that capital gains on a slump sale are to be computed in the year of transfer, irrespective of deferred payments. The provisions of Section 50B override the general principles of receipt or accrual for determining the taxability of such gains.
The Tribunal allowed one ground related to transfer pricing (Ground 4.14) for statistical purposes. The additional grounds concerning book profit computation were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Consequential grounds were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the affidavit of the brother-in-law as additional evidence, as it was vital to the explanation of the cash deposit. The Tribunal also noted that the AO incorrectly applied Section 68 instead of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not adequately examined certain provisions and expenses, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, it also noted that the assessee might be eligible for deduction under Section 80P based on subsequent judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal found that the assessee may not have been given a fair opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of sale proceeds from a property sale, as evidenced by the sale agreement and the assessee's voluntary declaration of the full sale consideration in her return. The delay in deposit was explained by the assessee being an NRI and the cash being held by her father.
The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the orders were quashed.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding foreign tax credit as a deduction. For transfer pricing, the issue was remitted back to the TPO for de novo consideration due to a misunderstanding of the business model. Disallowances under Section 14A were deleted.
The Tribunal decided to remand the transfer pricing issue for de novo consideration due to a misunderstanding of the assessee's business model. Disallowances for depreciation and under Section 14A were decided in favor of the assessee. The issue of additional foreign tax credit was also remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasons for treating the payment to R.G. Bhat as an intermediary could not be sustained, especially since the agriculturists affirmed receiving payment through him and the cheques were issued in their names. However, the nature of the crop grown was not sufficiently verified.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as bank entries are considered recorded in books of account. However, upon examining the credit entries, the Tribunal found that most of them were satisfactorily explained through banking channels with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of funds deposited in the bank account, including agricultural income of his parents and past savings. The addition sustained by the CIT(Appeals) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding discount expenses and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. It held that ESOP expenses are for the purpose of business and eligible for deduction. The Tribunal also directed the AO to rectify the TP adjustment addition and consider the 80G deduction.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparable selection for the ITES segment back to the AO/TPO for further examination. It also restored the issue of excluding Excel Infoways Limited to the TPO for verification. The negative working capital adjustment was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Since the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the deduction for employee's contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.