Loading ITAT cases…
95 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation of not receiving notices. It was held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that when interest income is taxed under Section 56, the assessee is entitled to deduct the proportionate cost of funds or interest expenditure incurred in earning that income. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the net income after such set-off.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices and lack of submissions before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. To provide a fair opportunity, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from grant funds is not taxable as income, following its own previous orders. It also held that expenses incurred on renewable energy projects and inauguration functions were revenue in nature and allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal decided several issues, including remitting the Section 80G deduction issue back to the AO for verification and allowing the claim for deduction as representative assessee. Other issues like MAT credit and TDS credit were also remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from grant funds is not taxable as income, following its own previous orders. It also held that expenses incurred on renewable energy projects and inauguration functions were revenue in nature and allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from grant funds is not taxable as income, following its own previous orders. It also held that expenses incurred on renewable energy projects and inauguration functions were revenue in nature and allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal decided various issues, including allowing the deduction under Section 80G after remitting it for verification, allowing claims for representative assessee, and remanding issues like MAT credit and TDS credit for verification. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal by the assessee is allowed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee took a loan to pay an advance for the purchase of a property. The seller later cancelled the agreement and paid Rs. 65 lakhs as compensation, which the assessee offered as income from other sources. The revenue authorities disallowed the deduction of Rs. 53,33,151 as interest paid on the loan. The Tribunal found that the loan taken by the assessee was the source for the advance payment to the seller, and without this loan, the assessee could not have paid the advance or received the compensation. Therefore, there was a direct nexus between paying interest to the bank and earning the compensation. The Tribunal also observed that for computing income from house property, the assessee must be the owner, which was not the case here, thus refuting the revenue's argument that the interest should only be set off against income from house property. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is eligible for the claim of deduction under Section 57 towards interest paid on the loan. The decision cited by the revenue in Haryana State Small Industries Export Corporation Ltd. was deemed not applicable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices and the submission of additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals). Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness of remand proceedings, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A was a double addition as the assessee's turnover, including cash sales during demonetization, had already been accepted. The opening cash balance was also not disputed.
The Tribunal noted that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was not properly appreciated by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision.
The Tribunal decided the appeal for statistical purposes. On Ground No. 2 (Denial of relief u/s. 10AA), the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the RBI approval restoring the Foreign Currency Account (FCA) facility to the assessee and to consider the claim in accordance with law. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. On Ground No. 3 (Disallowance u/s. 40(a) regarding payments to non-resident AEs and Non-AEs), the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's submissions and consider the claims in accordance with law for all sub-issues (payments to IBM Singapore, outbound assignee related payments, payments towards business profits of entities without PE, and payments to IBM Philippines). The Tribunal noted that evidence filed by the assessee had not been considered by the authorities for some issues. This ground was also allowed for statistical purposes. On Ground No. 4 (Disallowance u/s. 37(1) which were suo moto disallowed u/s. 40(a)), the Tribunal noted that the reversal of entries needed to be verified by the AO. If it was found that the amount was immediately reversed in the next Financial Year, the benefit shall be granted to the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds 1, 5, and 6 were considered general or consequential and did not require adjudication. The operative direction for all allowed grounds was to the AO for verification and consideration in accordance with law.
The Tribunal noted that the same issue for AY 2011-12 was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) by a coordinate bench for fresh verification. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue for AY 2012-13 to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had already accepted the entire cash deposits as turnover and computed income under Section 44AD, the same amount could not be taxed again under other provisions of the Act, as it would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80 do not apply to the carry forward and set-off of excess expenditure for a trust registered under Section 12A, as per the decision in Smt. Angoori Devi. However, the quantum of loss for AY 2015-16 needs verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that payments made to sub-contractors, who in turn paid laborers in cash due to business exigency, fall under the exceptions of Rule 6DD. Similarly, payments to migrating laborers without bank accounts were also considered genuine expenditures under exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal held that payments made to sub-contractors, who in turn paid laborers in cash due to business exigency, fall under the exceptions of Rule 6DD. Similarly, payments to migrating laborers without bank accounts were also considered genuine expenditures under exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal held that payments made to sub-contractors, who in turn paid laborers in cash due to business exigency, fall under the exceptions of Rule 6DD. Similarly, payments to migrating laborers without bank accounts were also considered genuine expenditures under exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the cause of action for the assessee arose from the section 143(1) intimation, not the section 143(3) assessment order which merely adopted the earlier figures. Therefore, the appeal against the 143(3) order was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had adopted a cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,50,000/- as on 01.04.2001 for indexation. The AO, however, adopted the guidance value of the Sub-Registrar. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal observed that the AO had adopted the guidance value of the Sub-Registrar, which was lower than the value adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided any material to justify the lower value. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order without proper justification. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the cost of acquisition as adopted by the assessee for the purpose of indexation. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that grounds related to comparables (Grounds 8, 11-14) were not adjudicated as they were treated as general in nature. Regarding the aggregation of international transactions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is a PUMA sales entity, and PIT is a global sourcing entity that sources products for PUMA sales entities. PIT assists the assessee with sourcing services from local third-party manufacturers in India. The Tribunal found that the sourcing support provided by PIT, which includes R&D fees collected from sales entities to compensate PUMA SE for global product creation efforts, cannot be aggregated with the trading activity of the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue authorities that these transactions should be segregated. However, the Tribunal observed that the TPO/AO had not benchmarked the transaction in accordance with transfer pricing procedures. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the TPO for de novo consideration, including determining the arm's length price by adopting the internal CUP method, and granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Ground 28 was allowed, and Grounds 21-27 were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues had arisen in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. For the issue concerning interest on delayed receivables (Ground Nos. 26-31), the Tribunal referred to its earlier order in IT(TP)A No. 322/Bang/2022, which in turn followed an order for AY 2015-16. In that order, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, directing the TPO to rework the interest computation based on the delay of individual invoices as per DRP directions. The Tribunal observed that the DRP's directions had not been fully complied with by the TPO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored this issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration on the lines indicated in the earlier order. Regarding Ground Nos. 32 & 33, which were similar to Ground No. 4 (non-compliance with DRP directions), the Tribunal noted that they did not require further adjudication in light of the earlier decision. For Ground Nos. 34 & 35, concerning deduction under Section 80G, the Tribunal held that if the assessee satisfied the conditions laid down in Section 80G, the deduction should be granted. For Ground Nos. 36 & 37, regarding interest under Sections 234B & 234D, the Tribunal stated that these are consequential and mandatory and should be computed correctly in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for depreciation on fixed assets as application of income, following a Supreme Court judgment. However, issues regarding corpus fund, loss on sale of assets, and refund of caution money were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The assessee's grievance was about the computation of refund and interest, which was considered by the AO in the order giving effect to the VSV Scheme. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the refund computation and tax credit.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the CBDT instructions regarding demonetization period deposits. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-examination with proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by widening the scope of limited scrutiny without proper conversion, thus deleting the addition on long-term capital gains. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing as required by the first proviso to Section 143(1) before making adjustments. The Tribunal also found that the AO/CPC exceeded their jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO/CPC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. It also noted that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper inquiry and relied on statements without establishing a clear link to the assessee's transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. It also noted that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper inquiry and relied on statements without establishing a clear link to the assessee's transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was insufficient to fasten tax liability in certain cases and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to provide necessary details and explanations for the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. It also noted that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper inquiry and relied on statements without establishing a clear link to the assessee's transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal found that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. It also noted that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper inquiry and relied on statements without establishing a clear link to the assessee's transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, citing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), as the additional grounds raised legal issues. Regarding the turnover filter, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in MWYN Tech Private Ltd. (supra) and Autodesk India Pvt Ltd. (supra), holding that companies with a turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crores in the current year should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of the specified companies from the comparables list. The assessee's submission that excluding these companies would bring its ALP within the arm's length was noted. As a result, the other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated and were left open. The operative direction was to exclude the companies based on the turnover filter.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for interest deduction, finding that the assessee failed to prove the loans were used for acquiring house property. The Section 54F exemption was also denied as the conditions were not met. The issue of unexplained cash credits was partly allowed, with a portion remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the provisions made were not allowed as expenditure, the corresponding profit would qualify for deduction under Chapter VIA. Following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the disallowed provisions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was partly valid. While the PCIT was justified in directing the AO to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A concerning investments in the partnership firm, the issue of club expenses was deemed to be a substitution of the AO's opinion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from cooperative banks. For interest earned from commercial banks, it should be treated as 'Income from other sources' and eligible for proportionate expenditure deduction under Section 57.