Loading ITAT cases…
270 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 153C for AY 2007-08 as it fell outside the six-year period preceding the satisfaction note. Consequently, the assessment framed was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought in by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a cost, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payment for the right to use a logo is a revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. Following its own previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not justified. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A for computing book profits under Section 115JB was incorrect, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had brought the issue to the AO's notice during assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the deduction claim. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the claim.
The Tribunal held that the claim of tax payment by the trustee was not a mistake apparent from the record and was a debatable issue not raised during the original assessment. Therefore, rectification under Section 154 was not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to the conversion to a faceless appeal process. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. However, it set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not justified. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A for computing book profits under Section 115JB was incorrect, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the liability became ascertained only on April 24, 2012, and thus related to the current assessment year. The AO was directed to allow the liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act is not maintainable before the ITAT, as appeals should be filed against orders of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not justified. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A for computing book profits under Section 115JB was incorrect, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and payment of taxes, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP as Nil without identifying comparables was inappropriate and remitted the issue of management fees to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding the freight charges, the Tribunal found contradictory facts and remitted the issue of Section 10AA deduction to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the jurisdictional issue of reopening, particularly concerning the proviso to Section 147, and had also not adjudicated the merits of the disallowance of additional depreciation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that forward premium relating to forward contracts booked to hedge forex risk on foreign currency borrowings should be amortized as expenses over the life of the forward contracts. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, it was deemed an allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Subsequently, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, employees' PF & ESI contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income are deductible.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee trust is working solely for a parent trust which has charitable objects and is enjoying 12A registration, the assessee's activities cannot be considered commercial. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) would not be applicable.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee trust is working solely for a parent trust which has charitable objects and is enjoying 12A registration, the assessee's activities cannot be considered commercial. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) would not be applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, as the accounts were audited within the prescribed time and the assessee believed the auditor had uploaded the report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B is deleted.
The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions and held that payments for accessing copyrighted material, rather than for the use of copyright itself, do not constitute royalty. Therefore, the disallowance and levy of interest were incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine the factual matrix of the case and confirmed the assessment order without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the cash deposit. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the partner was eligible for remuneration for the three months she was a working partner, and the amount claimed was in line with the partnership deed and Section 40(b) of the Act. Both the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to the conversion of the business into a private limited company and the initial formalities required, which constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sum was written off and offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year, leading to potential double taxation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the HUF were not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already allowed their appeals by deleting protective additions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the business income as belonging to the individual assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Act allows deduction of GST in the year of payment. Since the amount was not paid and not claimed as expenditure, there should be no addition. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, as the accounts were audited within the prescribed time and the assessee believed the auditor had uploaded the report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the HUF were not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already allowed their appeals by deleting protective additions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the business income as belonging to the individual assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.
The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions and held that payments for accessing copyrighted material, rather than for the use of copyright itself, do not constitute royalty. Therefore, the disallowance and levy of interest were incorrect.