Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the conditions for deeming dividend under Section 2(22)(e) were not met. Specifically, the assessee did not hold the requisite voting power in either the lending or borrowing company, and some of the shares held were preference shares with a fixed dividend rate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 44C expenses was unjustified as non-debiting in the books does not negate deductibility if the expense is genuine and otherwise allowable. It also held that any markup on head office expenses would be income of the head office, not the Indian branch.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn by the Revenue, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that a temporary lull in business due to reorganization does not justify disallowing legitimate business expenses. The CIT(A) had rightly allowed expenses related to market support services and some legal/professional charges.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal found that a detailed factual analysis comparing the assessee's case with a precedent (Nike Inc.) was lacking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual comparison and decide the applicability of the purchase exemption.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer/TPO on account of professional consultancy, management fee, and SAP consultancy charges were deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unconfirmed cash advances and bank account reconciliation to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their case. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order and that the assessee was entitled to the adjustment of seized cash against his tax liability. The department's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment under Section 153A was quashed by a coordinate bench, all additions made by the Assessing Officer automatically stood deleted. Consequently, the penalties levied on these additions also deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal, following its previous order for similar assessment years, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh in light of the Tribunal's previous directions.
The Tribunal set aside the issue back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds on merits, considering the additional evidence and submissions, and granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the comparables were not analyzed properly by the TPO and DRP, and restored the issue to the TPO for fresh analysis. It also directed the TPO to allow working capital adjustments and proportionate adjustments for international transactions, and deleted the disallowance of royalty based on a High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that violation of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) does not lead to denial of exemption on the total income. Only the income from the specific investment made in violation of Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn by the Revenue, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal held that the license acquired by the assessee constitutes a commercial right of an enduring nature, making it a capital asset eligible for depreciation. The payment was for acquiring a business or commercial right similar to those specified in the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, it can be presumed that investments were made from these funds, even if interest-bearing loans were also taken. Therefore, no part of the interest on borrowings can be disallowed on this basis.
The Tribunal held that the SRF account is not a time deposit as per the scheme and the provisions of Section 194A(3)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for TDS on the interest earned on this account.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance under Section 14A does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty proceedings require independent consideration of facts.
The CIT(A) held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal upheld this, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was duly served with the notice of hearing and their absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce the buyer, M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, along with relevant books of accounts and sale/purchase details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-examine the genuineness of the jewellery sale based on this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the hostel, being an integral part of the educational institution and catering solely to its students with no profit motive, should not be treated as a business. The surplus generated should be considered in line with the provisions for charitable institutions.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was initiated. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that a detailed factual analysis comparing the assessee's case with a precedent (Nike Inc.) was lacking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual comparison and decide the applicability of the purchase exemption.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had sustained a disallowance on an estimate basis without proper justification and without considering the cost allocation methodology report. Therefore, both the assessee's and the department's appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that a detailed factual analysis comparing the assessee's case with a precedent (Nike Inc.) was lacking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual comparison and decide the applicability of the purchase exemption.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the department were identical to those decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. Following its own prior orders, the Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce the buyer, M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, along with relevant books of accounts and sale/purchase details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-examine the genuineness of the jewellery sale based on this evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum of addition was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-determination, the penalty proceedings on the same amount should also be remitted to the AO. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for Section 14A disallowance. For low GP, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition, finding no infirmity. For travelling allowances, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) and allowed the revenue's ground, stating the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment under Section 153A was quashed by a coordinate bench, all additions made by the Assessing Officer automatically stood deleted. Consequently, the penalties levied on these additions also deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not justified if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessments have attained finality. Therefore, such additions are deleted.
The Tribunal held that the license acquired by the assessee constitutes a commercial right of an enduring nature, making it a capital asset eligible for depreciation. The payment was for acquiring a business or commercial right similar to those specified in the Income Tax Rules.
The tribunal dismissed the grounds that were not pressed. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the claim for tax credit for TDS/advance tax.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to the filing of the return, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *NTPC Limited*. The Tribunal found that the AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1)/143(2) on July 8, 2014, which was prior to the filing of the assessee's return of income on August 13, 2014. The assessment order itself confirmed that the return was filed on August 13, 2014. The Tribunal noted that issuing a notice under Section 143(2) before the filing of the return is not permissible under the law. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in *Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications*, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in *CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma*, and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in *Smt. Bandana Gogoi*, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated were illegal, unsustainable, and untenable. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. As the reassessment was quashed, other grounds raised by the assessee became academic and were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A can only be sustained if they are based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the AO's remand report indicated no additions were made based on seized material, the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the technical ground of a defect in the appeal memo without considering the merits. The Tribunal noted that such defects are often curable and should not lead to the dismissal of an appeal, especially when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices and natural justice violations.
The CIT(A) held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal upheld this, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 44C expenses was unjustified as non-debiting in the books does not negate deductibility if the expense is genuine and otherwise allowable. It also held that any markup on head office expenses would be income of the head office, not the Indian branch.