Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on a mere change of opinion, without new tangible material, is invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The DVO's report was received after the prescribed time limit, making it invalid, and thus the AO's original order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D are independent of the assessment proceedings. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme only covered the assessment issues, not the penalty. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding the agricultural income exemption claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to direct a fresh examination of the claim.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue's submissions due to the assessee's non-appearance, decided to remit the issue of unaccounted investment in gold back to the AO for proper verification. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details to substantiate the source of cash generated.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure for software purchases should not be based solely on the license period, but on whether it is system or application software. The issue of software expenditure was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that credit card commission disallowance for non-TDS was correct. Software expenses were correctly treated as capital expenditure. Processing fees and interest on the loan for the new hotel project were also treated as capital expenditure. Salaries transferred to work-in-progress were confirmed as capital expenditure. The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee should be excluded from the list of comparables. It also directed the exclusion of CES Ltd. and SPI Technologies India Private Limited due to functional dissimilarity.
The Tribunal held that the payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence regarding the cash deposits and loan disallowances had not been properly verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration of the details submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, delayed remittances made before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the inflated purchases and unaccounted expenditure. The assessment order was considered erroneous for not adequately verifying the facts.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263. The excess stock offered as income was part of business income, and the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry. Regarding the cash investment, Section 269ST applies to the receiver, not the payer, and the AO had already taxed the amount as undisclosed income in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the comparability of certain companies, specifically 'R Systems International Ltd.' and 'Sasken Technologies Ltd.', by considering additional evidence and allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The TPO was also instructed to re-compute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) based on these re-examinations.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable. 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 additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessments completed prior to the search cannot be made without incriminating material found during the search. The AO's reliance on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under Section 132A and without further inquiry was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A in unabated assessments, completed prior to the search, must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO relied on a DRI show cause notice without requisitioning it under section 132A and without further inquiry, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was not in accordance with the DRP's directions, rendering it unsustainable in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and a delay in filing it does not disallow the FTC claim. The Tribunal also noted that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules.
The Tribunal held that based on its own prior decision for an earlier assessment year, the assessee's dominant object was not profit-driven and its activities did not solely derive income from commercial sources. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the application of income under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the Executive Directors and the company, who manage its affairs, do not attract Section 269SS. There was a reasonable cause for accepting cash loans, thus the penalty under Section 271D is not exigible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) by not confronting additional evidence to the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on that specific issue was set aside for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11, following its own previous order for AY 2011-2012 and the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The AO was directed to verify the application of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) by not confronting additional evidence to the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on that specific issue was set aside for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the AO's order. The AO had conducted detailed inquiries and applied his mind before accepting the additional income as business income, which was a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) requires further verification and accordingly remitted the matter back to the AO. The appeal against the revision order under Section 263 was dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) requires further verification and accordingly remitted the matter back to the AO. The appeal against the revision order under Section 263 was dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal held that companies with a turnover of less than INR 200 crores cannot be compared with companies having a turnover of more than INR 200 crores for benchmarking purposes. The Tribunal also ruled that expenditure on Employee Stock Options (ESOP) is a revenue expenditure and should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned. For additions under Section 56(2)(viia), the fair market value of unquoted shares must be determined using the method prescribed in Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b), not the DCF method.
The Tribunal held that interest on delayed receivables is not a separate international transaction that requires benchmarking. It relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts which held that such interest cannot be charged as it's not a distinct international transaction.
The Tribunal held that AMP and warranty expenses cannot be treated as separate international transactions if the TPO has not rejected the assessee's margins in the trading segment. Therefore, the adjustments made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without proper verification and proper service of notices, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of not owning the capital asset and the nature of the transaction as a relinquishment of pre-existing rights, not a transfer, was not substantiated. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in exercising powers of enhancement under Section 251 as the Canara Bank account was not part of the original assessment. Consequently, the addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was appropriate, the selection of comparable companies needs careful consideration. It directed the exclusion of certain companies based on functional dissimilarity and remanded the issue of inclusion of another company for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without proper verification and proper service of notices, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting cash consideration due to her NRI status, short visit to India, and the urgency to complete the sale. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the working capital adjustment should be allowed to the assessee as it is necessary for a proper comparison. It also directed that interest paid should be treated consistently for both the assessee and comparable companies when computing operating margins.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee had no exempt income and the Explanation to Section 14A was prospective. Regarding Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal found that the payments made were for manpower services and not fees for technical services, and thus no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee had no exempt income and the Explanation to Section 14A was prospective. Regarding Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal found that the payments made were for manpower services and not fees for technical services, and thus no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 35(2AB) is covered by a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, allowing deduction on gross expenditure. The issue of DDT was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration due to conflicting views and a reference to a larger bench.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to transfer pricing (4-24) as the issue was settled under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). Ground 26 was accepted, directing the AO to apply the MAP rate to other transactions. Grounds 1-3 were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify claims for service tax error, MAT credit, and withholding tax credit.
The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the assessee's share valuation without proper examination and deleted the addition. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of TDS applicability and tax payment by payees.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent, amalgamated company is void ab initio, especially when the assessee had provided intimation of the merger. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Limited.