Loading ITAT cases…
127 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting, recognizing revenue upon transfer of risks and rewards (property registration), should be accepted. It found that applying the percentage completion method resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting, recognizing revenue upon transfer of risks and rewards (property registration), should be accepted. It found that applying the percentage completion method resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the taxable income considering the assessee's objections regarding the computation of book profits, arithmetical errors in total income, and the shortfall in interest granted under Section 244A. The issue of penalty under Section 270A was also to be looked into.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on leasehold land for mining. The additional ground regarding deduction for expenses incurred to acquire surface rights was dismissed as infructuous in light of the main ground's decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profits for the purpose of Section 115JB, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The Tribunal also restored certain issues related to TDS/TCS credit and demand on dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for refurbishing franchisee showrooms, including interior and exterior works, are revenue in nature and allowable. It also directed the AO to verify and compute interest under Section 234C in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's bifurcation of marketing and business support services was arbitrary and without basis. It also found that the TPO erred in rejecting the assessee's comparable companies and in applying arbitrary filters for benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's bifurcation of services and benchmarking analysis lacked proper basis and that the forex loss claimed by the assessee was in line with accounting standards. The Tribunal directed deletion of certain additions and granted credit for TDS as per Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for refurbishing franchisee showrooms, including interior and exterior works, are revenue in nature and allowable. It also directed the AO to verify and compute interest under Section 234C in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence without proper consideration. Therefore, the issue of additions based on diary entries was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that outstanding trade receivables could be considered an international transaction, but remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for a fresh decision. It directed that if working capital adjustment subsumes receivables, no separate characterization should be made; otherwise, interest should be charged at LIBOR + 300 basis points with a 90-day credit period.
The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding delayed remittance of employee PF contributions is covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services. However, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the related parties were not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as no technical knowledge was imparted to the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and no issues were decided on merits. In the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issues raised by the assessee and remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest on delayed receivables from Associated Enterprises constitutes an international transaction. The matter of calculating the interest rate was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issues raised by the assessee and remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issues raised by the assessee and remitted these grounds back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered the disputed amount in its income statement and claimed expenses against it. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of land and the subsequent sale of flats constitute two separate transactions for capital gains purposes. It also noted that the assessee's claim for Section 54 exemption was not substantiated as the property transferred was land, not a residential house.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. For the additions related to agricultural income and unexplained investments, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. For the additions related to agricultural income and unexplained investments, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the additional income offered was business income, as it was directly relatable to the sale of flats and open sites. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to deduct partner remuneration on this income as per Section 40(b)(v) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that while the interest income was indeed taxable as 'income from other sources' and not eligible for 80P deduction, expenses incurred to earn this income should be allowed as a deduction under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from borrowed funds, inextricably linked to capital expenditure for the project, should be capitalized and not treated as revenue income. The interest paid should also be capitalized to reduce the cost of the asset/construction.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to reconsider the inclusion of three comparable companies for benchmarking purposes. It also ordered the exclusion of seven specific comparable companies due to their significantly higher turnover than the assessee and remitted the issue of computational errors and working capital adjustments for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from borrowed funds, inextricably linked to capital expenditure for the project, should be capitalized and not treated as revenue income. The interest paid should also be capitalized to reduce the cost of the asset/construction.