Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the application of Section 145(3) was premature as the books of account were not examined. The matter was set aside to the AO for examination of the books of account and decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is void ab initio and cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The assessment proceedings were initiated against an entity that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation.
The Tribunal held that while business losses cannot be carried forward if the return is filed belatedly, unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward as per Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s order upholding this distinction was found to be correct.
The Tribunal restored the issue of whether the adjustment for delayed receivables is subsumed in working capital adjustment to the Assessing Officer/TPO for adjudication. Grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as withdrawn, and grounds 4 and 5 were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly discharged the burden of proving the excessiveness of the royalty payments. The AO's comparison with previous years' expenses was deemed insufficient without establishing fair market value.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on Dr. P. Mahalingam's statement, and the assessee was denied the right to cross-examine him. Since the Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the payment with cogent evidence, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision for the same assessee in a preceding assessment year where the reopening of assessment was quashed and additions on merit were deleted. Consequently, the addition made on account of client code modification was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of license fee addition by the CIT(A) was justified based on previous High Court and ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS and energy-saving/pollution control equipment, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of license fee addition by the CIT(A) was justified based on previous High Court and ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS and energy-saving/pollution control equipment, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F, considering the date of possession of the new residential property as the date of purchase. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment de-novo.
The Tribunal held that the primary object of the lease agreement was the leasing of workstations, not the building itself. The use of the building was incidental to the exploitation of the workstations, making the letting inseparable. Therefore, the income was correctly assessed under 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal restored the issues concerning differences in opening balances with M/s. Gulab Farms Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. V.C. Solutions (P) Ltd. back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's activities were charitable and it was eligible for exemption u/s 11. This decision followed consistent precedents from previous assessment years in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening was invalid. It found that the AO failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. Therefore, the reassessment order was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision on identical facts and for the same assessment year, the Tribunal quashed the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of purchases was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including VAT transit challans and payment through account payee cheques. The Tribunal also noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly considered the stock statement and the variation in rates was due to different qualities of steel purchased.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the Form 10A application as the amendment predated the effective date of Section 12A(1)(ab). However, it directed the CIT(E) to examine the genuineness of the amended objects submitted prior to April 1, 2018.
The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years was applicable. The TPO was not justified in making the adjustment, and the adjustment was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee and the assessee had filed for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Senior DR had no objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years was applicable. The TPO was not justified in making the adjustment, and the adjustment was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the loan was indeed received from Smt. Krishna Devi, mother of Shri Joginder, and the error in the name was a genuine mistake. The source of funds for the lender was also established through bank statements and other documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal relied on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification that it applies to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable. It relied on the non-discrimination clause of the India-Japan DTAA and previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim interest expenses as a deduction, either under Section 57 if the income is treated as 'income from other sources', or under Section 37 if treated as business income. Therefore, the interest expenses are allowable.
The Tribunal found that the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). Since the CIT(A) failed to decide this legal issue and other submissions on merit, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income and that expenses incurred by the Venture Capital Fund (VCF) should be considered on a net basis. The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in identical cases.
The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence regarding the share application money was not thoroughly examined by the authorities below. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(34) on dividend income and that expenses incurred by the Venture Capital Fund (VCF) should be considered on a net basis. The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in identical cases.
The Tribunal held that while the balances appeared in the books, the AO's report raised doubts about their genuineness and origin. The Tribunal found that filing balance sheets for preceding years was crucial to verify if the credits were indeed brought forward balances.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following the Delhi High Court's decision that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is received or receivable in the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular was binding on the tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which made the revised monetary limits applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The circular and its retrospective clarification were binding on the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The circular and its retrospective clarification were binding on the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before making a disallowance under Section 14A, especially when the assessee had made a suo-moto disallowance. Regarding the LTCG issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation as the assessee's business was continuing. It also allowed legal and professional expenses as they were incurred and accrued during the year, despite relating to a project sold in a prior year. However, the addition on account of the unoffered receipt was not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 as its activities are charitable and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Past decisions in the assessee's own case by the ITAT and High Court upheld similar claims.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, stating no disallowance can be made in the absence of exempt income, relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of the gratuity addition, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction on the investment in the flat and capital gains bonds, but not for the construction of a separate residential property at a different location.