Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange derivative contracts were entered into to manage business exposure and were not speculative. Therefore, the loss incurred was a business loss and allowable.
The Tribunal held that software acquired for a limited period (2-3 years) and not providing enduring benefit is revenue expenditure. However, upfront lease rent for 99 years for land was considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the unexplained delay and non-compliance with the defect memo. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file a recall petition with sufficient cause.
The Tribunal held that when borrowed funds are mixed with own funds and interest expenditure is not relatable to any particular income, the second limb of Rule 8D(2) is applicable. Therefore, the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a building was evidenced by the sale agreement and property tax assessment, despite its absence in the sale deed. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation from prior years, which had already been set off, did not need to be notionally carried forward and set off again against profits for the purpose of calculating the Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal held that software acquired for a limited period (2-3 years) and not providing enduring benefit is revenue expenditure. However, upfront lease rent for 99 years for land was considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that software acquired for a limited period (2-3 years) and not providing enduring benefit is revenue expenditure. However, upfront lease rent for 99 years for land was considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT instruction directing officers to accept the Madras High Court's judgment in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and withdraw pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee ought to have been examined by the lower authorities. Giving one more opportunity to the assessee would promote the cause of justice.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation from prior years, which had already been set off, did not need to be notionally carried forward and set off again against profits for the purpose of calculating the Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening was valid, the disallowance under Section 14A for the assessment year 2008-2009 should be restricted to 2% of the exempt income, considering Rule 8D as prospective.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the Board constituted under the IDAR Act rectified the approval decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that software acquired for a limited period (2-3 years) and not providing enduring benefit is revenue expenditure. However, upfront lease rent for 99 years for land was considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of building maintenance expenses and short-term capital gains to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. However, it dismissed the assessee's cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that the additional expenditure claimed by the assessee in appeal was akin to additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the additional expenditure claimed by the assessee in appeal was akin to additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the additional expenditure claimed by the assessee in appeal was akin to additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the additional expenditure claimed by the assessee in appeal was akin to additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the additional expenditure claimed by the assessee in appeal was akin to additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's working for income recognition and terms of subscription were now available and required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's and CIT(Appeals)'s assessment of investment in agricultural land and the conversion of a proprietorship to a private limited company were not properly considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable only to the extent of approval granted by the prescribed authority. It further held that the balance 10% additional depreciation can be carried forward and allowed in the subsequent year. The disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the affidavit and sale receipt, such as missing dates and blank paragraphs. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the High Court against a similar order does not warrant a different view. By following its own coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) to be levied, the assessee's explanation must be found to be false. Since the Assessing Officer did not find the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds from his deceased parents to be false, the penalty was wrongly levied.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not attracted when the assessee has not claimed any expenditure in relation to exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance and consequential interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that when a property is inherited or received via settlement, the cost of acquisition should be indexed from 01.04.1981, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Manjula J. Shah. The CIT(A) was bound to follow the Tribunal's previous orders on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a Madras High Court judgment in favor of the assessee. Following CBDT instructions to accept such judgments, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Income-tax Rules are applicable as borrowed funds and own funds were mixed, and the expenditure's attribution to taxable or non-taxable income was unclear. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that only underwriting commission, brokerage, and charges for prospectus drafting/printing/advertisement are allowable under Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Management commission paid alongside underwriting commission is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the land in question could not be considered agricultural land. While dry land can be cultivated, the adangal extract produced by the assessee did not indicate any cultivation. Therefore, for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, it had to be treated as a capital asset. Regarding valuation, the Tribunal noted that the guideline value is only one factor for the Sub-Registrar to determine fair market value, which depends on various factors. However, it also held that the fair market value determined by the appellate authority under Section 47A of the Stamp Act is a valuation that cannot be rejected merely because it was determined under that section. The Tribunal found the DVO's comparison of a 2400 sq.ft. plot with the assessee's 2,66,151 sq.ft. plot unjustified. Considering the location and comparable sale instances, the Tribunal concluded that the Sholinganallur property could not fetch more than ₹250 per sq.ft. Accordingly, it directed the AO to adopt the value of ₹250 per sq.ft. for the Sholinganallur property, confirming the valuation of the Perumbakkam property at ₹250 per sq.ft.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to Section 43B, payments made towards employees' contribution to ESI and Provident Fund are allowable if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) had rightly directed the AO to verify the payment dates.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years from 2002-03 onwards, a certificate from the port authority stating the Container Freight Station is part of the port is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, as per CBDT Circular No. 10 of 2005. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that only underwriting commission, brokerage, and charges for prospectus drafting/printing/advertisement are allowable under Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Management commission paid alongside underwriting commission is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not properly considering the grounds raised regarding the valuation of the property under Section 50C and other related issues. The Tribunal also found fault with the CIT(A)'s reasoning on how the DVO arrived at the fair market value.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to Section 43B, payments made towards employees' contribution to ESI and Provident Fund are allowable if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) had rightly directed the AO to verify the payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot disprove the contents of a registered sale deed, which he admitted to executing, by relying on affidavits. The claim of a family settlement was also rejected as the property belonged solely to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest, management fees, and corporate guarantee commission are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as they are not derived from the infrastructure facility business. For Section 14A, a 2% disallowance was directed as Rule 8D was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that only underwriting commission, brokerage, and charges for prospectus drafting/printing/advertisement are allowable under Section 35D(2)(c)(iv). Management commission paid alongside underwriting commission is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding the determination of arm's length interest rate for compulsory convertible debentures and the disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer for the current assessment years as well.
The Tribunal held that the factual aspects regarding the assessee's business and portfolios were not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter needed to be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not consider a prior decision of the Tribunal on a similar issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that income forming part of the total income cannot be disallowed. It further ruled that if a loan taken for a specific project is not repaid and profits are invested in assets yielding exempt income, it implies the assessee has not used its own funds for such investments, making Rule 8D(2) applicable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years from 2002-03 onwards, a certificate from the port authority stating that the Container Freight Station is part of the port is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, as per CBDT Circular No. 10 of 2005. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that if expenses like internet charges and foreign travel are excluded from total turnover, they must also be excluded from export turnover for Section 10A calculations. The CIT(A) was justified in directing this exclusion.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding the determination of arm's length interest rate for compulsory convertible debentures and the disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer for the current assessment years as well.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act operates retrospectively, allowing the assessee to claim deductions if the payees have offered the income and paid taxes. However, the disallowance was partly sustained due to insufficient evidence for the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that even though the Income-tax Act generally requires income to be assessed on accrual basis, if the principal amount of an advance is doubtful of recovery and classified as NPA, the interest on such advance cannot be considered as accrued income. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's consistent practice of recognizing interest on NPAs on a receipt basis.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of foreign travel expenses as the assessee failed to provide details of the mills intended for acquisition. Similarly, vehicle maintenance expenses were disallowed for lack of supporting material.