Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 7 of 13
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment year. The deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest, decided to dismiss the appeal without adjudication. The dismissal is in limine, meaning it is dismissed at the outset.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim for unabsorbed depreciation without proper year-wise breakup and verification. It also found that the short-term capital loss claimed was not supported by evidence of sale during the assessment year and could not be set off against normal income.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowances for year-end accruals and support service expenditure, citing identical issues decided in previous years. The transfer pricing adjustment was set aside to the AO for fresh determination. Disallowance of statutory liabilities was allowed with an opportunity for the assessee to submit evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Foundation was engaged in charitable activities for social causes without a profit motive. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's allegations of business activities and lack of separate accounts were misconceived.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Foundation was engaged in charitable activities for social causes without a profit motive. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's allegations of business activities and lack of separate accounts were misconceived.
The Tribunal held that transportation and games activities are incidental to the educational activities of the school and not separate business activities. Therefore, the surplus generated from these activities is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12. The penalties levied were also cancelled.
The Tribunal held that transferring profits to infrastructure development and general reserve funds for the society's objects does not constitute application for non-charitable purposes. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on capital assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, following High Court precedents, and that caution money received is part of educational activities.
The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 69B cannot be made solely based on a valuation report. The Assessing Officer must first prove that the assessee has invested more than what is accounted for, with positive evidence.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was technical and venial in nature, especially since all details were eventually provided and accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the commercial expediency of an expenditure should be judged from the businessman's perspective, not the tax authorities'. Since the assessee provided evidence of incurring the expenses and the Revenue failed to provide counter-evidence, the disallowance was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on merits despite the prior rejection of the revision petition. The CIT(A) correctly found that the addition made by the CPC was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 during the pendency of proceedings under section 142(1) without their conclusion is legally untenable. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated were invalid.
The Tribunal held that overdue receivables from an AE constitute an international transaction. However, it directed the TPO to re-examine the issue of not charging interest on outstanding receivables, considering the assessee's policy of not charging interest from both AEs and non-AEs. The Revenue's appeal regarding support service expenditure was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence due to the assessee's age and the time elapsed. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption under Section 54F, stating such claims can be made before appellate authorities even if not made in the original return.
The Tribunal held that since the additions were deleted in the quantum proceedings and no interest under Section 234B was charged by the Assessing Officer in giving effect to that order, the grounds raised by the Revenue became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty should not have been levied as the AO failed to give effect to the appellate order in the quantum proceedings. Furthermore, the assessee's contention that the payment was compensatory and not penal was not rebutted, and the sales tax orders supporting this claim were not found to be false.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses from earlier years, which have already been set off against profits of other businesses, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business for the purpose of Section 80IA deduction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to reopen the assessment after four years when there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reopening was therefore not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO invoked Section 14A read with Rule 8D without recording his dissatisfaction and without the assessee earning any exempt income. Following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, the Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous year (2009-10) where it had ruled that all categories of doctors were consultants. Following this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Since the Revenue could not demonstrate any exception to the circular, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an investor and not a trader in shares, considering its primary business, the classification of shares as investments in books, and lack of borrowings for such transactions. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that charges for credit card services and swipe machines are not considered commission under Section 194H. Therefore, TDS was not required to be deducted on these payments.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition on account of bogus liability, noting that the books of account were audited and the AO did not dispute the sales. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of electricity expenses, as similar expenses were allowed in prior years for hired premises.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the AO was authorized to charge interest as it was part of the original assessment order, which merged with the appellate orders. The Tribunal found no illegality in the calculation or adjustment of interest against refunds.
The Tribunal held that the AO was authorized to charge interest as it was part of the original assessment order, which merged with the appellate orders. The Tribunal found no illegality in the calculation or adjustment of interest against refunds.
The Tribunal held that 'link charges' should be adjusted from both export and total turnover, following previous decisions. It also ruled that depreciation on computer peripherals should be allowed at 60% as per High Court rulings. Crucially, the Tribunal decided that Section 10A deduction must be computed before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the AO was authorized to charge interest as it was part of the original assessment order, which merged with the appellate orders. The Tribunal found no illegality in the calculation or adjustment of interest against refunds.
The Tribunal held that the AO was authorized to charge interest as it was part of the original assessment order, which merged with the appellate orders. The Tribunal found no illegality in the calculation or adjustment of interest against refunds.