Loading ITAT cases…
581 orders · Page 11 of 12
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the facts and circumstances for the current assessment year were identical to the previous years decided by the High Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a 'Kaccha Arahtia' and not a 'Paccha Arahtia', meaning he did not take on the risk of the transaction. This ambiguity regarding his role constituted a reasonable cause for not getting his accounts audited.
The Tribunal held that the advance paid for R&D equipment is deductible under Section 35(1)(iv) even if the machine was not fully acquired or installed in the same year. It also held that the expenditure on external roads was allowable as it was for strengthening existing roads and not constructing new ones.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had obtained the tax audit report before the due date, and therefore, there was no default that warranted a penalty under Section 271B. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for recall of the order if reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made if the payee has disclosed the interest income in its return and paid taxes thereon, even if the certificate was not in the prescribed Form 26A. The intention of the proviso to Section 201(1) is to remove hardship to the payer in such genuine cases.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amount received under the MAP agreement was conditional and intended for onward payment to sub-distributors. Since the practice was consistent and accepted in prior years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange loss on imported machinery is a short-term capital loss, not allowable as a business loss. However, the foreign exchange loss on raw materials was confirmed as a revenue loss allowable under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. This was because proceedings under Section 153C, under which the assessment was initiated, had been previously quashed by a coordinate bench due to a lack of a valid satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable because the assessee was not specifically made aware of whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order was passed mechanically and lacked clarity on the specific offense. The appeal related to the quantum addition was dismissed, while the penalty appeal was allowed.
The tribunal held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. This decision was made in accordance with established legal precedents and the tribunal's inherent powers.
The tribunal held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. This decision was made in accordance with established legal precedents and the tribunal's inherent powers.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition on account of inflated loss. For managerial remuneration, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision and dismissed the revenue's ground.
The tribunal held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. This decision was made in accordance with established legal precedents and the tribunal's inherent powers.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest-bearing funds in the form of share capital and reserves, which exceeded the advance given. Since no direct nexus was established between borrowed funds and the advance, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The tribunal held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. This decision was made in accordance with established legal precedents and the tribunal's inherent powers.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding corporate guarantee fee, modifying the CIT(A)'s order to apply a 1% fee. The issue of interest on loans was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering prior year's DRP directions. The deletion of disallowance for capital subsidy was upheld.
The tribunal held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. This decision was made in accordance with established legal precedents and the tribunal's inherent powers.
The Tribunal held that donations made out of a corpus fund to another charitable institution for charitable purposes cannot be taxed, especially when the corpus fund has not been diverted for personal use. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, allowing deduction for premium on redemption of FCCB. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, holding that share application money paid to foreign subsidiaries does not constitute an international transaction for ALP adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to serve the notice under Section 148 at the assessee's correct and latest address as per the return of income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was without proper service of notice, rendering the reassessment proceedings illegal.
The Tribunal noted that similar payments were accepted as arm's length in previous and subsequent years, and the taxpayer had provided evidence of services rendered and benefits derived. The Tribunal found no reason to depart from the rule of consistency.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, allowing deduction for premium on redemption of FCCB. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, holding that share application money to foreign subsidiaries does not constitute an international transaction for ALP adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee also became infructuous.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing its appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals in limine.
The Tribunal held that additions for scrap sales should be based on incriminating material, not estimation, especially under Section 153A. It also restored the AO's additions for speed money expenses, finding the CIT(A) erred in reversing them. Issues regarding transformer oil and unvouched expenses were remanded.
The Tribunal held that additions for scrap sales should be based on incriminating material, not estimation, especially under Section 153A. It also restored the AO's additions for speed money expenses, finding the CIT(A) erred in reversing them. Issues regarding transformer oil and unvouched expenses were remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The CIT(A) had verified that the supplier provided information about another party and that payments were made by cheque in subsequent periods, confirming the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Ld. DR did not press the appeal in light of this circular.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, additions under Section 153A could not be sustained. The Tribunal followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. It was of the considered opinion that all relevant information was before the Assessing Officer, and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order but directed the AO to exclude LIC maturity amounts from the gross receipts when calculating the 10% estimated income. The appeals were allowed in part.
The Tribunal held that since the matter was settled under the MAP and a consequent fresh assessment order was passed, the departmental appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order for the same assessment year had quashed the impugned assessment order. Therefore, the current appeal by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years, allowing deduction for premium on redemption of FCCBs. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed, holding that share application money to foreign subsidiaries is not an international transaction for ALP adjustment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order but directed the AO to exclude LIC maturity amounts from the gross receipts when calculating the 10% estimated income. The appeals were allowed in part.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable because the show-cause notice was not specific about whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the details provided in the return did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that interest income inextricably linked to the business undertaking is eligible for Section 10B deduction. It also directed the AO to allow deduction for interest paid on loans used for property construction, subject to verification. However, the exclusion of scrap sale from turnover was decided against the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Since the appeal did not fall under any exceptions to the circular, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding corporate guarantee fee, modifying the CIT(A)'s order to apply a 1% fee. The issue of interest on loans was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering prior year's DRP directions. The deletion of disallowance for capital subsidy was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, specifically on the issue of disallowing premium on redemption of FCCB. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on grounds related to interest on share application money and the applicability of Section 92B.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the assessee's conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal inferred that the assessee had lost interest in the matter.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were previously set aside and remanded for fresh disposal. Given that the penalty is directly related to the additions made in the assessment, and the assessment itself was subject to further scrutiny, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals were previously set aside and remanded for fresh disposal. Given that the penalty is directly related to the additions made in the assessment, and the assessment itself was subject to further scrutiny, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable because the assessee was not specifically made aware of whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order was passed mechanically and lacked clarity on the specific offense. The appeal related to the quantum addition was dismissed, while the penalty appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper notice was served. The principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that commission payments to non-resident agents for export sales, where services were rendered outside India, do not represent income chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, tax deduction at source was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.