Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 4 of 5
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's failure to declare the property sale. The assessee's appeal against the penalty order was dismissed.
The tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses was to be allowed if the recipients had offered the income to tax, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance of parking expenses and cost of improvement of the flat were upheld due to lack of substantiation. The issue of transit losses was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the previous order of the Tribunal in ITA No.546/Mds/2016, dated 29.07.2016, had set aside the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal's observation that the DRP's order was non-speaking and inconsistent with Section 144C of the Act led to the remand. The Tribunal clarified that when an appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, it means the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to follow the procedure laid down under Section 144C. The Tribunal found that the DRP's directions dated 28.12.2017 and the consequent order passed by the AO dated 31.12.2017 were passed without understanding the interpretation of the Tribunal's earlier order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the DRP's directions and the AO's order, remanding the matter back to the AO to re-decide the adjustment to ALP afresh as prescribed under Section 144C of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that salary income accrued to the assessees for work performed in China would not be taxable in India, while salary received for work performed in India would be taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in Shri Kanagaraj Shanmugam vs. ITO (ITA No.2936/Chny/2018 dated 07.09.2022) and other judicial precedents, including decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court, and Calcutta High Court, as well as CBDT Circular No.13/2017. It was reasoned that Section 5(2) of the Act is subject to other provisions, including the DTAA, and Section 9(1)(ii) clarifies that salary income is deemed to accrue or arise in India only if earned in India for services rendered in India. The Tribunal found that the facts were similar to the cited cases, where treaty benefits were extended even to non-residents. The assessees had offered proportionate salary for services rendered in India to tax in India and had offered the balance salary for tax in China, without claiming foreign tax credit. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly. The substantive grounds raised by the assessees were allowed, rendering additional grounds infructuous.
The Tribunal held that salary income accrued to the assessees for work performed in China would not be taxable in India, while salary received for work performed in India would be taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in Shri Kanagaraj Shanmugam vs. ITO (ITA No.2936/Chny/2018 dated 07.09.2022) and other judicial precedents, including decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court, and Calcutta High Court, as well as CBDT Circular No.13/2017. It was reasoned that Section 5(2) of the Act is subject to other provisions, including the DTAA, and Section 9(1)(ii) clarifies that salary income is deemed to accrue or arise in India only if earned in India for services rendered in India. The Tribunal found that the facts were similar to the cited cases, where treaty benefits were extended even to non-residents. The assessees had offered proportionate salary for services rendered in India to tax in India and had offered the balance salary for tax in China, without claiming foreign tax credit. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly. The substantive grounds raised by the assessees were allowed, rendering additional grounds infructuous.
The Tribunal held that salary income accrued to the assessees for work performed in China would not be taxable in India, while salary received for work performed in India would be taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in Shri Kanagaraj Shanmugam vs. ITO (ITA No.2936/Chny/2018 dated 07.09.2022) and other judicial precedents, including decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Bombay High Court, and Calcutta High Court, as well as CBDT Circular No.13/2017. It was reasoned that Section 5(2) of the Act is subject to other provisions, including the DTAA, and Section 9(1)(ii) clarifies that salary income is deemed to accrue or arise in India only if earned in India for services rendered in India. The Tribunal found that the facts were similar to the cited cases, where treaty benefits were extended even to non-residents. The assessees had offered proportionate salary for services rendered in India to tax in India and had offered the balance salary for tax in China, without claiming foreign tax credit. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly. The substantive grounds raised by the assessees were allowed, rendering additional grounds infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction and the validity of the assessment order. However, these grounds were rejected. The Tribunal found that the issue of cash deposits and business income estimation required fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claim of receiving cash on-money from the property sale. The buyer's non-response to summons further weakened the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were not justified. For AY 2007-08, the AO had considered the seized material and the assessee's explanation, and for AY 2013-14, the AO had applied his mind to the expenses claimed and made a disallowance. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were not justified. For AY 2007-08, the AO had considered the seized material and the assessee's explanation, and for AY 2013-14, the AO had applied his mind to the expenses claimed and made a disallowance. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous.
The Tribunal found that if the assessee had already disallowed 30% of the expenditure, a further disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) on the same amount would be incorrect. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the deeming fiction under Section 50C is for determining the full value of consideration under Section 48, and cannot be extended to Section 54F for calculating deductions. It emphasized that for Section 54F, the actual consideration received should be the basis for investment.
The Tribunal held that 'other comprehensive income' items, specifically revaluation surplus of assets and gains/losses from equity instruments designated at fair value through other comprehensive income, are not to be included in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that salary income earned for services rendered in a foreign jurisdiction is not taxable in India, even if paid by an Indian employer, provided it is offered to tax in the foreign country. The benefit of the DTAA is applicable.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business setup but before commercial production are allowable if revenue in nature. The issue of forex loss was restored to the AO for consistency. Bad debts were allowed as routine business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business setup but before commercial production are allowable if revenue in nature. The issue of forex loss was restored to the AO for consistency. Bad debts were allowed as routine business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that there is no prohibition for a trust to donate to another charitable trust with similar objects, especially if it's a non-corpus donation. Even if the objects were different, the donation could not be taxed as income if the assessee had already applied more than 85% of its gross receipts for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal held that the bank had rectified the defects within the time allowed under Section 285BA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FAA was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the bank had rectified the defects within the time allowed under Section 285BA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FAA was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the bank had rectified the defects within the time allowed under Section 285BA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FAA was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the loss on forward contracts was a business loss, not speculative, following High Court precedents. It also confirmed that the retained security deposit was income from other sources, not capital gains, as there was no extinguishment of rights.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim for depreciation on electrical installations as the AO did not provide specific reasons for disallowance. For the co-generation plant assets, the Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case, allowing the 80% depreciation claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-cooperation throughout the proceedings, including failure to respond to penalty notices, indicated willful concealment of income. The Tribunal found no prejudice caused to the assessee and upheld the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings to suggest the agricultural income belonged to the assessee instead of the HUF, additions made under Section 153C were not valid. The agricultural income should not be considered in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim for depreciation on electrical installations as the AO did not provide specific reasons for disallowance. For the co-generation plant assets, the Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case, allowing the 80% depreciation claim.
The Tribunal found that the objections raised by the assessee regarding the comparable company were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the SBN deposits constituted business receipts as clients used demonetized currency for booking tour packages. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 5% on the SBN deposits, similar to other deposits.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s rejection of books of accounts to be correct but modified the profit estimation. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit margin from 30% to 2.21% of sales turnover, considering the average profit of comparable years and the profit assessed in a prior regular assessment.
The Tribunal held that the loss on forward contracts was a business loss, not speculative, following High Court precedents. It also confirmed that the retained security deposit was income from other sources, not capital gains, as there was no extinguishment of rights.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal for AY 2013-14, treating 50% of the cash deposit as explained and sustaining the addition for the remaining 50%. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely, considering the explanation provided.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal for AY 2013-14, treating 50% of the cash deposit as explained and sustaining the addition for the remaining 50%. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely, considering the explanation provided.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's computation was incorrect. It noted that in preceding and subsequent years, the revenue had accepted the assessee's adopted tax rates, and directed the AO to accept the assessee's computation.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings to suggest the agricultural income belonged to the assessee instead of the HUF, additions made under Section 153C were not valid. The agricultural income should not be considered in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings to suggest the agricultural income belonged to the assessee instead of the HUF, additions made under Section 153C were not valid. The agricultural income should not be considered in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s rejection of books of accounts to be correct but modified the profit estimation. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit margin from 30% to 2.21% of sales turnover, considering the average profit of comparable years and the profit assessed in a prior regular assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of extracting minerals from beach sand constitutes 'manufacturing' as per Section 2(29BA) and Supreme Court decisions. It also found that additional depreciation was allowable and no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the issue after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee provided complete details nor the Assessing Officer verified the issue properly. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that the amortization of premium on debentures, linked to land acquisition (stock-in-trade), should be capitalized to stock-in-trade until the asset is put to use. The Assessing Officer's failure to conduct proper inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous.