Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B(1) was correctly levied, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, as the case did not involve reassessment proceedings under sections 147 or 153A.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding it was not maintainable as it was filed against a non-existent entity. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to reconsider transfer pricing adjustments, particularly regarding comparable companies and working capital, based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the property was held as a capital asset for a significant period and was accepted as such in wealth tax assessments. Therefore, the income from its sale should be treated as capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B(1) was correctly levied, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, as the case did not involve reassessment proceedings under sections 147 or 153A.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to rectify a factual error in the calculation of average assets for disallowance under Section 14A. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance after verifying dividend-yielding and other investments, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Maxopp Investments Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT, the appeal was not maintainable. The circular also stated that pending appeals with a monetary limit below Rs. 20 lakhs would be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the AR had agreed to the disallowance by signing the order sheet, the addition was valid. The CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition was found to be without infirmity.
The Tribunal held that denying registration solely based on the constitution of trustees from specific families is not a valid ground, referencing a previous ITAT decision. The CIT(E) had not adequately examined the genuineness of the trust's objects.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing them to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide the issue based on facts and law after providing a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and without assigning reasons for rejecting the adjournment application. Principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The CIT(A) did not decide the additions on merit, only rejecting the ground related to reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds raised on merit.
The Tribunal held that the rendering of services for domain name registration is akin to rendering services in connection with the use of an intangible property similar to a trademark. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyam Infoway Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rediff Communications Ltd., and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Tata Sons Limited, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view that charges received for domain name services constitute royalty under Clause (vi) read with Clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal was rejected. Grounds No. 3 and 4 concerning web hosting services were not pressed by the assessee as the tax rate for royalty and FTS is the same, making the issue academic. Ground No. 5 regarding penalty proceedings was rejected as premature. Ground No. 6 concerning interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also rejected as consequential, with no variation in quantum. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessment order might be considered erroneous by the CIT, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since both conditions of Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial) were not met, the revisionary order was vitiated.
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to processing charges and packing labour charges, finding them to be ad hoc. The addition on interest for capital work-in-progress was upheld. The addition for the unsecured loan was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on funds temporarily placed in FDRs, which were raised for the specific purpose of setting up the project and earned prior to business commencement, is a capital receipt. This receipt is to be set off against pre-operative expenses and is not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax on foreign agency commission paid outside India for export promotion. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO on this ground was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance on UPS and computer peripherals, following previous High Court decisions. However, it partly allowed the Revenue's appeal on Section 14A by restricting the disallowance to 5% of dividend income.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's action in determining the ALP was in contravention of its previous order. The deduction u/s 10B should be allowed on a standalone basis for eligible units.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue given the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal inferred that the assessee had lost interest in the matter.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in converting the protective addition to a substantive addition, as the ultimate beneficiary had already been taxed. However, a small difference in amounts received and transferred needed verification.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. This circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals and was binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in converting the protective addition to a substantive addition, as the ultimate beneficiary had already been taxed. However, a small difference in amounts received and transferred needed verification.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal filed by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be based on identical reasons as in a related case where reassessment was similarly invalidated. The department's appeal on merits was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the AO failed to apply his mind to the materials before him and merely relied on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-prosecution is shown.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to prove that the gifts were wholly and exclusively for business purposes or that they promoted business profits. The identity of recipients and business exigencies were not established, making the disallowance by the lower authorities valid.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the grounds raised had become academic and infructuous due to the UPERC's decision and the non-prosecution of appeals by the other party.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, following a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance on UPS and computer peripherals, following previous High Court decisions. However, it partly allowed the Revenue's appeal on Section 14A by restricting the disallowance to 5% of dividend income.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal by the Revenue should not have been pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the AO failed to apply his mind to the materials before him and merely relied on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed based on the revised monetary limits.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the land compensation and taxable as capital gains. However, it also ruled that such compensation from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, subject to conditions.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to non-resident commission agents were for procuring orders and not for consultancy or technical services. The Tribunal found no cogent material to establish that the agents rendered such services, and noted the department's consistent acceptance of similar payments in prior and subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the revised return was validly filed and directed the AO to consider the claims made therein afresh. Regarding the undisclosed income, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s directions and allowed the Revenue's appeal on this point to be revisited.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and ignoring crucial evidence. The assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the prescribed procedure for appellate orders and may have dismissed the appeals prematurely. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal for non-prosecution was not sustainable in law as it lacked proper reasoning and points for determination. The ITAT set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the condition in Section 47(xiii)(b) refers to capital accounts only, not fluctuating current accounts. It also found that payments made to partners against their current account balances were not a benefit other than share allotment. Therefore, the conversion qualified for exemption under Section 47(xiii).
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on advances to the AO for verification of own funds. It also restricted the disallowance on unverifiable expenses to 10% instead of the AO's 20%. The addition for bogus sundry creditors was deleted.