Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was properly passed and served within the due date. It also found that the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause or exigency for accepting cash loans, thus confirming the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the seized material relied upon by the Principal CIT was unsubstantiated and lacked corroborative evidence. The assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination, and the presumption under Section 132(4A) read with Section 292C was rebuttable.
The Tribunal held that the remand proceedings should be confined to the issues raised in the original appeal and that the TPO could not introduce new issues. It also allowed the claim for deduction under Section 10A after considering post-facto approval from RBI.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on leasehold improvements is identical to the previous assessment year and directed the Assessing Officer to verify additions made to assets based on evidence for proper determination of disallowance. The Tribunal also noted that the TPO's TP analysis was contested.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit from earlier withdrawals. The addition made by the AO was not based on material evidence and was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not a 'prima facie' adjustment as the tax auditor had merely recorded facts, not suggested disallowance. However, it also noted that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was justified based on subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not a 'prima facie' adjustment as the tax auditor had merely recorded facts, not suggested disallowance. However, it also noted that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was justified based on subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as its activities of providing credit facilities to members are covered by the said section. The AO's disallowance based on Section 80P(4) was incorrect in this context.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, particularly accepting deposits from non-members and engaging in finance business, were akin to banking. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P was rightly denied, following the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society.
The Tribunal held that no notional interest should be charged on a loan given to an AE that was effectively written off and reflected as NIL in the financial statements. It also directed the AO to verify and delete interest levied under Section 234A if the return was filed within the due date.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the rejection order and directed the Principal CIT to consider the declaration. The assessee then sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue it later.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not deposit the employees' contribution to PF/ESI within the due date as per the respective Act. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services, the Tribunal found substance in the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are limited to income emanating from incriminating search material. Since the PCIT's issues were disclosed in the financials and not from incriminating material, the revisionary powers were incorrectly invoked.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are limited to income emanating from incriminating search material. Since the PCIT's issues were disclosed in the financials and not from incriminating material, the revisionary powers were incorrectly invoked.
The Tribunal held that the amount debited to the P&L account for bad debts, which was simultaneously reduced from trade receivables in the balance sheet, constituted an actual write-off and not a provision for diminution in value of an asset. Therefore, it could not be added back to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the AO's order. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind, and the PCIT failed to provide material to show an error prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the issue of inclusion of certain comparable companies (Akshay and Evoke) should be set aside to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in light of information available in the public domain. Similarly, the issue of inclusion of SagarSoft as a comparable was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses related to seminars, conventions, and sales promotion needed fresh verification by the AO in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal acknowledged that prior to this judgment, there were differing views on the applicability of MCI regulations and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the netting of interest income against interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF/ESI deducted by the employer, if not deposited within the due date as per the respective Acts, are disallowable. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT-1.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are limited to income emanating from incriminating search material. Since the PCIT's issues were disclosed in the financials and not from incriminating material, the revisionary powers were incorrectly invoked.
The Tribunal held that the amount debited to the P&L account for bad debts, which was simultaneously reduced from trade receivables in the balance sheet, constituted an actual write-off and not a provision for diminution in value of an asset. Therefore, it could not be added back to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the seized ledger page did not belong to the assessee as the assessee's name was not mentioned and the land area did not match. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69B based on this document was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's directions to apply a turnover filter for selecting comparable companies in TP studies. It affirmed that only companies with turnovers between Rs. 200 crore and Rs. 2000 crore should be considered as comparables.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by GIPL to GIL for the purchase of online advertisement space for resale to Indian advertisers were not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, GIPL was not an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by GIPL to GIL for the purchase of online advertisement space for resale to Indian advertisers were not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, GIPL was not an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by GIPL to GIL for the purchase of online advertisement space for resale to Indian advertisers were not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, GIPL was not an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including remitting issues related to comparables and subvention receipts back to the AO/TPO for re-examination. Some grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, while others were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by GIPL to GIL for the purchase of online advertisement space for resale to Indian advertisers were not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, GIPL was not an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was justified, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue was not debatable at that point and the lower authorities had followed the due procedure.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was justified, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the issue was not debatable at that point and the lower authorities had followed the due procedure.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by GIPL to GIL for the purchase of online advertisement space for resale to Indian advertisers were not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, GIPL was not an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim exemption under Section 10(2A) as the partnership firm had earned profit in the impugned year, even though it was set off against previous losses for tax computation purposes. The assessee did not receive undue benefits.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and does not lead to disallowance of FTC if filed during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and does not lead to disallowance of FTC if filed during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the written-off advances. The assessment order was set aside with directions for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF must be remitted on or before the due date specified under the relevant employee welfare legislation for them to be allowable as a deduction under Section 43B. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 powers. It reasoned that since there were two possible views on how to treat the income and allow deductions, and the AO had applied his mind, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement and that the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Act and Rules. Therefore, the foreign tax credit should be allowed.
The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenses, following its own prior decisions. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for re-examination. The deduction for leave encashment on an actual payment basis was allowed.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-cooperation, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked proper discussion regarding the income declared, constituting a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the full MAT credit claimed.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was invalid because it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the revision order was deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked proper discussion regarding the income declared, constituting a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the full MAT credit claimed.
The tribunal held that unutilized CENVAT credit must be capitalized to the cost of the asset, not claimed as an expenditure. The donation was held to be a business expenditure under Section 37(1). The issue of bad debts deduction was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked proper discussion regarding the income declared, constituting a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the full MAT credit claimed.
The Tribunal held that the rental income earned by the assessee is inseparably connected with its core cargo business and emanates directly from it. Therefore, the rental income is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Regional Rural Bank, is deemed a cooperative society and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), with Section 80P(4) not being applicable. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order was considered non-est in the eyes of law.