Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that while personal use of foreign travel by family members and gifts cannot be entirely ruled out, there was business exigency. Therefore, 50% of the disallowances for foreign travel, gold jewellery, and hotel expenses were directed to be allowed.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of interest income earned by staff advance, following a previous decision. For other grounds concerning depreciation, repair and maintenance, and Section 40A(ia) disallowances, the tribunal sustained the disallowances due to lack of evidence.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of interest income earned by staff advance, following a previous decision. For other grounds concerning depreciation, repair and maintenance, and Section 40A(ia) disallowances, the tribunal sustained the disallowances due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that while personal use of foreign travel by family members and gifts cannot be entirely ruled out, there was business exigency. Therefore, 50% of the disallowances for foreign travel, gold jewellery, and hotel expenses were directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer to ascertain the nature and purpose of the loans taken by the assessee. If loans were for specific assets or projects, the interest should be capitalized.
The Tribunal held that the issue needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer to ascertain the nature and purpose of the loans taken by the assessee. If loans were for specific assets or projects, the interest should be capitalized.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the issues on merits. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if negative revenue base models are considered for royalty computation, their associated costs must also be factored in. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not consider the cost associated with negative revenue base models and that the assessee's reconciliation statement was not available to the AO.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was engaged in a specified business, the delay in obtaining the star classification was a crucial factor. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim that the delay was solely attributable to the competent authority.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss on restatement of foreign currency loans for working capital is a revenue expenditure and allowable. For travelling and general expenses, where both parties failed to fully justify their positions, the Tribunal directed a partial disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the write-offs related to the subsidiary were incidental to the business and therefore deductible as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on the returned cylinders, stating that the asset block was correctly adjusted. However, interest on TDS was disallowed, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenditure was not in question and allowed its capitalization as work-in-progress. The Assessing Officer's findings were deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that the write-offs related to the subsidiary were incidental to the business and therefore deductible as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on the returned cylinders, stating that the asset block was correctly adjusted. However, interest on TDS was disallowed, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained that the interest-free loans to sister concerns were not out of interest-bearing funds but from available interest-free funds, including depreciation. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.