Loading ITAT cases…
210 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the assessment of income under 'income from other sources' due to lack of details. However, it directed the exclusion of unrealized sale proceeds from both export and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and failed to discuss the basic facts. While opportunities were provided by the AO, the assessee could not avail them. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for reframing the assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's change in accounting method for buffer stock subsidy from accrual to receipt basis was justified due to uncertainties in entitlement and payment. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and failed to discuss the basic facts. While opportunities were provided by the AO, the assessee could not avail them. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for reframing the assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration belonged to the assessee or other co-owners, as the PoA holder had no legal right or interest in the property. However, the issue of disallowance of eviction expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition. The deduction of TDS by clients on total payments, including reimbursements, along with reconciliation statements and bills, sufficiently proved that the amounts were reimbursements and not income. The assessee's method of accounting for service charges as income and squaring off reimbursements was acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's change in accounting method for buffer stock subsidy from accrual to receipt basis was justified due to uncertainties in entitlement and payment. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient reconciliation for stock and purchase differences. The Tribunal agreed that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable based on the provided evidence and explanations.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues for earlier years were set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination of TDS applicability on payments to the non-resident.
The Tribunal held that selling and general administrative expenses debited to the P&L account were correctly treated by the assessee as they are not part of project costs. However, finance costs and professional fees require further verification by the AO to determine if they relate to the specific project.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54 as the delay in depositing the unutilized capital gains was a technical breach. The assessee had ultimately invested the entire capital gains in acquiring a new residential house within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was barred by limitation. The limitation period for revision should be calculated from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order, as the issue of interest income deduction was not part of the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done after four years and based on a change of opinion, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment was confirmed.
The assessee's counsel filed a petition to withdraw the appeal. The CIT-DR did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issue of 'cost of improvement' was not part of the original reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) for bank deposits. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility of payments depends on whether they were made within the time allowed under the respective PF & ESI Acts. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the debit note and credit note clearly indicated the exporter's acceptance of the quality variance and agreed reduction in price. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the assessment of income under 'income from other sources' due to lack of details. However, it directed the exclusion of unrealized sale proceeds from both export and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal noted that identical issues for earlier years were set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination of TDS applicability on payments to the non-resident.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal found that the appeal filed by the assessee was significantly time-barred by 1751 days. The assessee did not provide any petition for condonation of delay or explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal held that VAT is not a fee or charge levied exclusively on the assessee, nor is it an appropriation by the State Government. Therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of course material is assessable under 'income from other sources' and not eligible for Section 10A deduction. For rental income, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of its nature. Additions for certain creditors were deleted, and the allocation of Section 43B disallowances was directed to be on the basis of turnover.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of course material is assessable under 'income from other sources' and not eligible for Section 10A deduction. For rental income, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of its nature. Additions for certain creditors were deleted, and the allocation of Section 43B disallowances was directed to be on the basis of turnover.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had properly considered the issues raised. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The tribunal held that the recent Supreme Court decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT' has settled the law in favor of the revenue, confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI if not paid by the due date.
The tribunal held that the recent Supreme Court decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT' has settled the law in favor of the revenue, confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI if not paid by the due date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not independently adjudicating the appeal and instead following the revisional order. However, considering previous decisions, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) was confirmed. The issue of OTS-interest waiver was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issue of unsecured loans from M/s. Rams Estate, as evidenced by the lender's return of income. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had considered the issues, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the revenue was prejudiced.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee adopted the internal CUP method in subsequent years and the TPO accepted it, the assessee should be given another opportunity to justify this method for the current year. The issue was set aside to the AO/TPO for re-consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 60% depreciation on UPS and printers. However, the issue of disallowance of reimbursement of expenses needs to be re-examined by the TPO.
The tribunal held that the recent Supreme Court decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT' has settled the law in favor of the revenue, confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI if not paid by the due date.
The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land and used for agricultural purposes, thus entitled to the exception under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer's reasons for denial were found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the inventory write-off. It found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence and documentation to support the claim, especially considering its status as a listed company.
The Tribunal found that the legal ground regarding reopening of assessment was indeed raised before the CIT(A) and had not been properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the legal ground regarding reopening of assessment was indeed raised before the CIT(A) and had not been properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any new tangible material. The Assessing Officer failed to establish any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 139(1) by filing the return belatedly. Following its own order for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IC.
The tribunal held that the recent Supreme Court decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT' has settled the law in favor of the revenue, confirming the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI if not paid by the due date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO for verification was within the powers granted under Section 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) had decided the issue on merits and provided directions for computation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay before the CBDT under Section 119. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to decide after the CBDT's decision on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on belated service tax payments is compensatory in nature and not a penalty. Therefore, it is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction regarding the computation of loss was incorrect as the AO had considered the revised return in the computation sheet. However, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction regarding the disallowance of prior period expenses was correct as the AO had failed to examine this issue properly.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule 8D did not alter the settled legal position that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation were not cogent, as the sales figures did not show an increase. However, acknowledging the lack of complete proof from both sides, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 30% net profit on the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is to be confirmed for normal computation of income, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. However, for book profit computation under Section 115JB, such disallowance would not be added as it is not an adjustment envisaged in the relevant explanation.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services. For the R&D expenditure, it directed the AO to disallow only the additional deduction on the differential amount.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The appeal was to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) after affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its stand.