Loading ITAT cases…
518 orders · Page 6 of 11
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment as the assessee had participated in proceedings, and Section 292BB deems notices duly served if the assessee co-operates. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of certain additions made by the AO.
The CIT(A) held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act applies to these services as they are related to prospecting for mineral oils, excluding them from Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision in ONGC's own case, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were for independent certification and did not involve making technical knowledge available to ONGC. Therefore, it did not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-USA DTAA, and since the non-resident had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a professionally qualified doctor, was carrying on a business, not a profession. Therefore, the higher threshold for business turnover applied, and the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the issue of allowance of expenditure incurred to earn commission income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the issue of allowance of expenditure incurred to earn commission income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked proper jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and impose the penalty. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the appropriate officer for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act applies to these services as they are related to prospecting for mineral oils, excluding them from Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision in ONGC's own case, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the director of the lender company appeared and confirmed the loan, and the lender had sufficient funds in its bank account, the addition made by the AO was not justified. The inquiry by the Investigation Wing also did not reveal anything adverse.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of one comparable company due to excessive related party transactions. For two other companies, the matter was remanded as the TPO's exclusion was based on an incorrect calculation of the assessee's personnel cost ratio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the CIT(Appeals) had properly considered the facts and evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings regarding the deletion or restriction of additions.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked proper jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and impose the penalty. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the appropriate officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as it reflected an arbitrary exercise of power without tangible material coming into possession of the AO after the intimation. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the transfer pricing grounds and restored the file to the AO/TPO for fresh computation, directing them to include specific segments of comparable companies. For corporate grounds, the Tribunal held that interest on short-term deposits is income from business eligible for deduction, but interest on IT refunds is income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the AO is duty-bound to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment within a reasonable time and prior to the completion of the assessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessee despite repeated requests, the reassessment order was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as it reflected an arbitrary exercise of power without tangible material coming into possession of the AO after the intimation. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the financial assistance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. It reasoned that the periodicity of payment does not determine taxability, and the nature of the receipt as compassionate support is decisive.
The CIT(A) held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act applies to these services as they are related to prospecting for mineral oils, excluding them from Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision in ONGC's own case, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act applies to these services as they are related to prospecting for mineral oils, excluding them from Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision in ONGC's own case, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the financial assistance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. It reasoned that the periodicity of payment does not determine taxability, and the nature of the receipt as compassionate support is decisive.
The Tribunal admitted the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee, acknowledging the assessee's ignorance of time constraints and the genuine belief that explanations could be provided later. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, there was no specific time limit prescribed under Section 11(2) for filing Form No. 10. Therefore, the benefit of accumulation should be granted if Form No. 10 is filed before the conclusion of assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh, and this limit was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not imposable on disallowances that were deleted in quantum appeals or restored to the Assessing Officer. It also ruled that penalty cannot be levied based on subsequent retrospective amendments in law, particularly concerning provisions for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that scrap sales should be included in the total turnover for calculating the Section 10B deduction, following a previous ruling. However, interest income was rightly excluded from the Section 10B deduction as it was not derived from the eligible undertaking. The issue of arm's length price for interest on loans to subsidiaries was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not imposable on disallowances that were deleted in quantum appeals or restored to the Assessing Officer. It also ruled that penalty cannot be levied based on subsequent retrospective amendments in law, particularly concerning provisions for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a correct computation of capital gains in the current year, even if the original return was delayed, as it was not a claim for carrying forward losses. It was considered a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed as per the instructions in the circular.
The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and perused the material. The specific details of the expenditure and the reasons for penalty levy are not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the appeal concerns the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that penalty was not imposable on disallowances that were deleted in quantum appeals or restored to the Assessing Officer. It also ruled that penalty cannot be levied based on subsequent retrospective amendments in law, particularly concerning provisions for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in speculative commodity transactions where no physical delivery occurs, the 'turnover' for Section 44AB purposes is not the gross transaction value but the net profit or loss. Therefore, the assessee had a reasonable belief that audit was not required.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and merely made claims that could not be substantiated, which does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the provision for post-retirement medical benefits, made on the basis of actuarial valuation, is an ascertained liability and therefore an allowable deduction. The Tribunal followed its own previous order on the same issue for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid because the reasons and approval were based on general provisions (Section 148) instead of the specific provisions for fringe benefits tax (Section 115WH). Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153A, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid.
The ITAT, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in *CIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha*, ruled that the source of funds for acquiring the new residential property is irrelevant for claiming exemption under Section 54. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the full deduction on capital gains despite using borrowed funds for the new house.
The Tribunal held that two comparable companies, Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Limited, were not comparable as they were KPO service providers, unlike the assessee's BPO services. The Tribunal also noted that the DRP had not addressed the issue of working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the truck expenses were allowable as the trucks were exclusively used in the assessee's own business. It also held that the cash expenses for property improvement were supported by evidence and thus allowable.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not imposable on disallowances that were deleted in quantum appeals or restored to the Assessing Officer. It also ruled that penalty cannot be levied based on subsequent retrospective amendments in law, particularly concerning provisions for bad and doubtful debts.