Loading ITAT cases…
147 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60% as it is part of a computer. However, it confirmed the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) as the invested companies were only distributing electricity and not eligible under Section 80(IA)(4). The addition made while computing book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted for insurance companies.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and did not condone it. As neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, the appeal was not admitted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60% as it is part of a computer. However, it confirmed the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) as the invested companies were only distributing electricity and not eligible under Section 80(IA)(4). The addition made while computing book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted for insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60% as it is part of a computer. However, it confirmed the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) as the invested companies were only distributing electricity and not eligible under Section 80(IA)(4). The addition made while computing book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted for insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60% as it is part of a computer. However, it confirmed the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) as the invested companies were only distributing electricity and not eligible under Section 80(IA)(4). The addition made while computing book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted for insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court decisions, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on UPS should be allowed at 60% as it is part of a computer. However, it confirmed the disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) as the invested companies were only distributing electricity and not eligible under Section 80(IA)(4). The addition made while computing book profit under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted for insurance companies.
The Tribunal held that the intimation raising the demand under Section 234E was invalid as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. The AO could have passed a separate order under Section 234E, but this was not done within the limitation period.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission. The CBDT circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs, which was the case here.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with the stipulated time limits for submitting the TP report to the TPO. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the DRP to admit and consider the TP study report.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular for withdrawing appeals.
The Tribunal held that customer lists and goodwill acquired through Business Transfer Agreements are considered intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The non-compete clause in the agreement was seen as supporting the transfer of commercial rights.
The Tribunal held that customer lists and goodwill acquired through Business Transfer Agreements are considered intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The non-compete clause in the agreement was seen as supporting the transfer of commercial rights.
The tribunal held that it was inappropriate for the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal before adjudicating the quantum appeal on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision after adjudicating the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied on an Investigation Wing report without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut it. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the value of closing stock of land cannot be treated as nil. It directed the AO to value the closing stock based on the lower of the market value from government revenue records or the actual cost including development charges.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that if recipients declared income and paid tax, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted, especially considering the second proviso to the section.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that a difference of opinion on the classification of income (capital gain vs. revenue receipt) does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of difficulty in obtaining confirmations due to loan defaults and the involvement of financial brokers, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the land was intended to be treated as a capital asset by the partnership firm, based on the circumstances at the time of purchase and registration. Therefore, the profit on sale of land should be assessed as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that export turnover and total turnover must be treated consistently for Section 10A deduction. It also ruled that voluntary disallowances, RAM card expenditure, and interest on belated service tax remittance are eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the High Court is not a ground to deviate from a previous tribunal order, especially when no stay has been granted. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the tribunal's precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that a difference of opinion on the classification of income (capital gain vs. revenue receipt) does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that it was the Revenue's duty to furnish copies of statements recorded from third parties, even if not requested by the assessees. Since this was not done, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that a difference of opinion on the classification of income (capital gain vs. revenue receipt) does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that the capital gain was invested in the new asset as the cost of the proportionate share of land was used for construction. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had decided to withdraw both appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had decided to withdraw both appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that export turnover and total turnover must be treated consistently for Section 10A deduction. It also ruled that voluntary disallowances, RAM card expenditure, and interest on belated service tax remittance are eligible for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the family arrangement was valid and did not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the amounts received, including the non-compete fee, were not taxable.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a caveat petition are not sustainable as it's not a sworn statement. It also ruled that the assessee company was the developer in a joint development project and thus entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to levy fee under Section 234E while processing statements under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. The amendment enabling such levy was effective from June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that payments for marketing and procurement services to overseas agents are not 'fees for technical services' and thus Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The matter regarding disallowance under Rule 14A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect for all assessment years was below the specified limit. The Revenue was unable to demonstrate otherwise, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause explained for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's careless and lassitude approach in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the income from both leasing space and providing maintenance services should be considered as income from business. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the nature of the premises, and the assessee's business object demonstrated an intention to provide space as part of its business.
The Tribunal held that the income from both leasing space and providing maintenance services should be considered as income from business. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the nature of the premises, and the assessee's business object demonstrated an intention to provide space as part of its business.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause explained for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's careless and lassitude approach in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause explained for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's careless and lassitude approach in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause explained for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's careless and lassitude approach in filing the appeals.