Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover, citing a Supreme Court decision. It also held that surcharge and cess are part of income-tax for MAT credit purposes, relying on the legislative history and Supreme Court pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that surcharge and education cess are indeed part of income-tax, as supported by Article 271 of the Constitution and Apex Court judgments. Therefore, they should be adjusted against the tax liability under the MAT scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year on an identical issue. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 261 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that cash in the hands of a money lender is stock-in-trade, and only the profit should be assessed as income, not the entire deposit. The Assessing Officer's own observation regarding the net additional income was also considered.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision for assessment year 2012-13, where it had remitted the matter back to the AO for verification. The AO, after verification, had granted the deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the assessee provided credit facilities to members for housing purposes and received interest.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced books of accounts to explain the credits. Considering the assessee's financial situation and claim of possessing relevant documents, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the determination of whether Section 234B(1) or 234B(3) applies requires interpretation, which is beyond the scope of rectification proceedings under Section 154. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that determining whether Section 234B(1) or 234B(3) applies requires interpretation, which is beyond the scope of rectification proceedings under Section 154. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt Ltd. was binding. This decision, following Supreme Court rulings, allowed deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return, even if paid after the statutory due date.
The Tribunal held that the determination of whether Section 234B(1) or 234B(3) applies requires interpretation, which is beyond the scope of rectification proceedings under Section 154. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order setting aside the Section 154 rectification was confirmed.
The CIT(A) allowed the claim, finding that the assessee had commenced R&D activities and also generated revenue from the sale of vehicles. The tribunal upheld this decision, acknowledging that the assessee had undertaken activities essential for manufacturing and had also engaged in a separate line of business for sourcing.
The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The goodwill arising from the demerger and share swap ratio was not considered artificial.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was invalid because it used 'or' instead of 'and' and did not clearly specify the default the assessee needed to explain. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the alternative claim for deduction under Section 54F, finding it was not a fresh claim. It also upheld the benefit of indexation from the previous owner's holding period, as per established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal would not lie before it as the tax effect was less than the minimum limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal directed that the AO and assessee should follow the directions of the Supreme Court in the Exide Industries case. The AO is to amend the orders once the question of law in the Exide Industries case is finally decided.
The Tribunal directed that the AO and assessee should follow the directions of the Supreme Court in the Exide Industries case. The AO is to amend the orders once the question of law in the Exide Industries case is finally decided.
The Tribunal directed that the AO and assessee should follow the directions of the Supreme Court in the Exide Industries case. The AO is to amend the orders once the question of law in the Exide Industries case is finally decided.
The Tribunal held that royalty paid for using a logo is revenue expenditure, following previous decisions. It also held that computation under Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB should not involve Section 14A computations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before deciding on fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the issues were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination and decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to present supporting material.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before deciding on fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether trainers stayed in India for more than 90 days and if the services constituted 'fees for technical services' required further verification by the AO. However, it was held that payments to TQ Services were profit sharing and not commission, thus Section 194H was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before deciding on fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before deciding on fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that brand license fees paid for the use of a logo based on turnover are revenue expenditure. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for employee PF/ESI contributions and Section 14A expenses, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before admitting fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 432 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 432 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 432 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The AO must provide the assessee an opportunity to prove the donations are actual and the recipient foundation is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 432 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of donation genuineness to the AO for re-adjudication. The onus is on the assessees to prove the donations were actual and the recipient foundation was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine cause due to natural calamity. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeals on merits after verifying records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine cause due to natural calamity. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeals on merits after verifying records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine cause due to natural calamity. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeals on merits after verifying records.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), finding no TDS was required. Regarding the deemed dividend, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to obtain details and apply the ratio of the Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the new property purchased by the assessee did not qualify as a residential house for the purpose of Section 54 deduction, as it lacked basic amenities and was merely a small shed. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative plea regarding the recomputation of capital gains.