Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the incentive received under MLFPS is a capital receipt, not taxable as income. It also held that the expenditure incurred on the construction of the building on leased land is revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be computed on the profits of the business as per the specified manner, and Section 80IA(9) (similar to 80IB(9)) affects the allowance of deduction, not its computation. It also noted that the total deduction under Chapter VI-A should not exceed the profits of the business.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be computed on the profits of the business as per the specified manner, and Section 80IA(9) (similar to 80IB(9)) affects the allowance of deduction, not its computation. It also noted that the total deduction under Chapter VI-A should not exceed the profits of the business.
The Tribunal held that timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is a necessary condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd., the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under section 147 was invalid as it was based on the same material considered during the original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. Furthermore, the reopening was initiated beyond four years without satisfying the conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 147.
The Tribunal held that while the transfer of flats to partners should be treated as a sale in the hands of the firm, the profit arising from such a transfer would be eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, as the firm was already claiming this deduction on its entire housing project profit. Therefore, there was no net taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the land was a capital asset and not agricultural land. Therefore, the capital gains arising from its sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to dispose of the assessee's application for immunity under section 270AA before levying penalty under section 270A. Therefore, the penalty order was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the revised Form 35 was a rectification and not a fresh filing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the original appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that filing the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 10AA. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that filing the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 10AA. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT v. Wipro Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.
The tribunal directed the AO to re-examine transfer pricing adjustments after admitting additional evidence and to consider specific factors for Section 14A disallowance. However, the disallowance of funded interest converted into loans was upheld due to lack of sufficient evidence of payment.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from deposits with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, the matter of interest income from associate members requires further examination in light of the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is a necessary condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd., the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the land was a capital asset and not agricultural land. Therefore, the capital gains arising from its sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit for other traders and could not back-track from the transactions. However, a full disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the classification of the land as 'Residential Area Class-III' in the Registration Department's website is a vital factor. Previous ITAT rulings have given precedence to such official classifications over revenue records or VAO certificates.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Madras High Court ruling in CIT vs. Working Women's Forum, that only the income attributable to the violative investment should be taxed, not the entire income.
The Tribunal held that the claim should be examined under Section 31(i) (current repairs) first, which prevails over the residual Section 37(1). The CIT(A) had not examined the claim under Section 31(i).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while filing Form 10B is mandatory, the CIT(A) should have waited for the disposal of the assessee's condonation application before dismissing the appeal. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the revision orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the revision orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper hearing opportunity.
The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of godown rent, finding that the assessee was not liable for TDS as their turnover was below Rs. 1 Crore. However, the addition of cash deposits was dismissed, holding that accepting SBNs after they lost legal tender status was an illegal act from which the assessee could not profit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue agreed to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal decided to restore the first issue concerning the ALP of management services back to the file of the CIT(A). The reasoning was that the assessee could not establish contracts with two of the AEs (Tenova Mining and Minerals (Pty) Ltd and M/s. Takraf GmBH) and could not submit invoices or establish the receipt of specific services before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to examine the documentary evidence, including contracts and invoices/e-mails from pages 290 to 363 of the assessee's paper book, and reconsider the issue without being influenced by earlier orders. For the second issue regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the TDS credit in Form 26AS and evidence of prepaid taxes amounting to Rs. 9.40 crores while computing the tax payable and allowing credit. The third issue regarding interest under Section 234A was also remitted back to the AO for verification of the return filing date. The fourth issue concerning interest under Sections 234B and 234C was directed to be recomputed by the AO after granting credit for TDS and prepaid taxes. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue agreed to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The revenue did not object to this. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee's claim of double taxation was correct. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the PCIT's order. It held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the non-application of Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the additional payments made for rehabilitation and settlement charges, supported by agreements and paid through banking channels, would form part of the cost of acquisition of land. However, it found no illegality in the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the additional payments made for rehabilitation and settlement charges, supported by agreements and paid through banking channels, would form part of the cost of acquisition of land. However, it found no illegality in the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that interest income earned from deposits linked to plant and machinery acquisition should be capitalized. The issue was remitted back to the AO to ascertain the direct nexus between borrowed funds and investments.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on non-compete fees has been decided in favor of the assessee in all earlier assessment years by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the revenue's appeals against these decisions have already been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide orders dated 25.02.2021 due to low tax effect. The Tribunal noted that copies of these High Court decisions were placed on record, confirming that the issue has attained finality in the assessee's favor. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50.00 lakhs or less should not be filed by the Revenue. This circular is applicable retrospectively.