Loading ITAT cases…
600 orders · Page 3 of 12
The Tribunal followed its previous order for AY 2009-10, which held that the disallowance of expenditure was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the assessee's intention was to conduct business, as evidenced by her actions and declarations.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence without properly rebutting the assessee's claim of being prevented by sufficient cause. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) needs re-examination by the AO in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and the first proviso to Section 201(1), which are considered declaratory and curative. The onus is on the assessee to produce certificates from all NBFCs.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was invalid. It found that the assessment should have been completed under section 153C read with section 153A, and that the notice under section 143(2) was not served within the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were not valid comparables for transfer pricing analysis due to significant issues like fraud or lack of proper data. However, it allowed the inclusion of one comparable for further examination. The disallowances for write-offs were deleted, treating them as allowable business expenditure or bad debts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee's counsel had appeared and sought adjournments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting its appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of ALP for both goods and royalty payments. For goods, it was to be done in light of previous High Court and Tribunal observations, and for royalty, in accordance with the ratio in Cushman & Wakefield regarding the TPO's limited scope.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by providing evidence of the agreement to sell, bank statements showing the deposit and return of the advance, and confirmation from the other party. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 200 crores. It found that Rs. 72,23,63,000/- represented current assets, including debenture application money pending allotment, which was part of the High Court-approved scheme. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had not examined the details of these current assets. The issue thus narrowed down to Rs. 128 crores of OCDs transferred between April 1, 2009, and May 25, 2010. The Tribunal referred to Clause 7.1.1 of the Scheme of Demerger, which allowed CHPL to alter or modify assets with the concurrence of GSHPL (the assessee). Therefore, the transfer of Rs. 128 crores as OCDs against equity shares in the ratio of 1:6 was permissible. The Tribunal observed that the source of these OCDs was not in dispute, as it was explained as money received by CHPL from the sale of shares and capital gains tax was paid. The Tribunal concluded that this was a case of issuing shares for consideration other than cash (OCDs), which is a capital account transaction and not income under Section 2(24) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s findings were found to be accurate and correct.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections against the reopening proceedings, as required by law, renders the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order is quashed.
The tribunal held that the fee deposited was correct as the appeal related to penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Furthermore, since the quantum addition was set aside and restored to the AO in the assessee's own case, the penalty in dispute did not stand.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the filing of the return makes the assessment order invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid by the assessee to the buyer for short supply was a genuine business loss incurred during the course of business. The Tribunal found that adequate evidence, including a settlement deed and buyer's debit note, supported the claim.
The Tribunal held that mobilization/demobilization charges and reimbursement charges are to be included in gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that mobilization charges and reimbursement charges are includible in gross receipts for the purpose of Section 44BB. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Sedco Forex International Incorporation.
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee on all three disputed additions. Regarding the Rs. 20,89,000/- addition, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete documentary evidence to establish the transaction, including the purchase of rights in Spaze Towers and their transfer. The Tribunal noted that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor were not in doubt, and the mere non-appearance of a person on medical grounds, despite providing necessary details, should not lead to an adverse inference against the assessee. The addition was deleted. Concerning the Rs. 5,00,000/- from the sale of the Nangloi plot, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had purchased agricultural land in 1994 and transferred it in 2010 through a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, and Possession Letter. The consideration was received via account payee cheque and acknowledged. The Tribunal found the receipt well-explained and not an unexplained credit, and the AO made no attempt to dispute the receipt from the vendee. This addition was also deleted. For the Rs. 3,00,000/- from the sale of old furniture, the Tribunal noted that the sum was received by account payee cheque from Mrs. Sashi Aggarwal, who confirmed the purchase. The Tribunal found that the AO accepted the sale of the house property, and thus, disputing the consideration for household items sold to a confirmed tax assessee with a PAN was not justified. The buyer's confirmation and filing of ITR, despite requesting excuse from appearance on medical grounds, meant neither identity nor creditworthiness could be disputed. The addition was deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of all additions, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that providing hostel and transport facilities to students is incidental to the main educational activity and not a separate business. The disallowance of depreciation was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that providing hostel and transport facilities to students is incidental to the main educational activity and not a separate business. The disallowance of depreciation was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO to re-examine the benefit test for inbound technical services. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain expenses from operating expenses.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) should be charged for 'every month or part of a month'. If the default period is 30 days or less, interest should be for one month; if it exceeds 30 days, interest should be for two months.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not sustainable if the assessee has deposited the tax and interest, and the revenue fails to prove contumacious conduct. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on lease rent payments for Jaypee Sports International Ltd. and Jaypee Infratech Ltd.
The Tribunal held that income accrues when a ticket is booked and full payment is received, entitling the assessee to deduct commission. The assessee is entitled to 10% credit for travel agent commissions after ascertaining actual outgoings.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) should be charged for 'every month or part of a month'. If the default period is 30 days or less, interest should be for one month; if it exceeds 30 days, interest should be for two months.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not sustainable if the assessee has deposited the tax and interest, and the revenue fails to prove contumacious conduct. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on lease rent payments for Jaypee Sports International Ltd. and Jaypee Infratech Ltd.
The Tribunal held that Shroffs Engineering Limited was a suitable comparable as its functional profile and financial parameters matched the assessee's. The DRP's rejection solely on the basis of the TPO not having considered it was not justified.
The tribunal held that the subsidy received for setting up a unit is a capital receipt. However, interest paid on capital borrowed for assets not yet put to use is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not sustainable if the assessee has deposited the tax and interest, and the revenue fails to prove contumacious conduct. The Tribunal deleted the penalty on lease rent payments for Jaypee Sports International Ltd. and Jaypee Infratech Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act. The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the actual cost incurred.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid by the assessee was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income, and therefore, it was allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also found that no borrowed funds were used for investment in shares.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the subsidy received for setting up a unit is a capital receipt. However, interest paid on capital borrowed for assets not yet put to use is not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(2A) and Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure does not automatically lead to penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It also noted a discrepancy in the charges for which penalty was initiated versus levied.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was initiated more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The information relied upon by the AO was not new, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.