Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 4 of 4
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a certificate to that effect was filed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the AO's lack of application of mind. The AO relied on information without conducting necessary inquiries to establish a link with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO recorded incorrect facts in the reasons for reopening by concealing prior order sheet entries where the explanation for cash deposits was accepted. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was unjustified and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the loan was from a group company where the assessee held a significant shareholding. The source of funds was traced back to the assessee itself through other group entities, and the transactions were reflected in the balance sheets. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The ITAT held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income, restricting it to Rs. 1,80,717. For the stock option loss, the tribunal found that the authorities below relied solely on an ex-parte SEBI order which was later vacated, without examining the genuineness of the business loss. Therefore, the entire addition on this ground was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of software were not in the nature of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the India-Ireland DTAA, following previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the carry forward of deficit from earlier years is permissible for charitable trusts to compute their assessable income. This decision was based on established High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The reassessment order was also invalid as the Delhi AO relied on the reasons recorded by the Hyderabad AO, constituting borrowed satisfaction.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. It directed the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the case and submit necessary documents, considering the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application based on the non-furnishing of FY 2018-19 financials. It was noted that the appellant is a statutory body whose dominant purpose is of general public utility, and the genuineness of its activities is established.
The Tribunal held that the assessee owned the CMS software developed for its business purposes, including managing its publications and updating the Income Tax Department's website. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on this intangible asset.
Since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by the Tribunal, no penalty is leviable. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that investment in shares of subsidiary companies, when it is an object of the company and done for commercial expediency, is considered for business purposes. Therefore, the interest paid on the loan is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment can be made on account of notional interest on receivables by treating the continued debt balance as an international transaction, especially when the taxpayer is debt-free and does not charge interest on similar delays from unrelated parties. The main transfer pricing adjustment was also contested.
The Tribunal held that the payments received were for the supply of goods (hardware) and a limited right to use copyrighted material (software), not royalty. It further held that the definition of royalty in the DTAA is narrower than the domestic law and has not been amended, thus benefiting the assessee.
The Tribunal held that outstanding trade receivables from an associated enterprise, especially when exceeding the assessee's shareholder funds, can be considered a separate international transaction. The TPO's action of charging interest on these overdue amounts was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the seconded employee was not an employee of the assessee company, and the salary reimbursement was not taxable as FTS. It also found no evidence of a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) or any other form of PE in India.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalties arising from it would not survive. The penalties were cancelled, with liberty to the AO to re-levy if advised after passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. Regarding salary expenses, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified as the assessee provided explanations and the CIT(A) had made further inquiries.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalties arising from it would not survive. The penalties were cancelled, with liberty to the AO to re-levy if advised after passing a fresh assessment order.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rectifying the order under Section 154 as it was a mistake apparent from the record, and the reduction in MAT credit was correctly made. The charging of interest under Section 234B was also upheld as mandatory in this case of a computational error.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for cash deposits was not sustainable as the assessee did not maintain books of account. The issue regarding Section 54F deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification due to additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that provisions made on an accrual basis, based on reasonable estimates, are not unascertained or contingent liabilities. It further held that stamp duty paid on lease deeds, even for a long period, is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had dismissed it based on an incorrect observation regarding the appeal fee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not establish a direct link between gifts and sales, the expenditure was for business promotion and not personal. The revenue cannot dictate business practices, but the reasonableness of the quantum is important.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) but directed the estimation of gross profit based on an average of the current year and four preceding assessment years (11.31%). Other additions for commission, fines/penalties, and interest on FDR were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of the Bar Council of Delhi is the advancement of general public utility, as established by Supreme Court precedent. The non-furnishing of FY 2018-19 financials was not a sufficient ground to deny registration, especially when prior financials were available and the institution is statutorily recognized.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to contest the issue on merit in future assessment years if the need arises.
The Tribunal held that the losses from the US hotel unit and US LLCs should be treated as 'income from other sources', not business losses. This was based on the assessee's passive role, investment intention, and consistency with previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was for pure rendition of services and entitlement to subscribe to software, not for acquiring copyrighted articles. Therefore, it did not constitute royalty, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the disallowance of interest paid, as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also upheld the restricted disallowances for director remuneration and advertising expenses, and the deletion of the addition to the cost of goods sold, as the AO had not pointed out discrepancies in the books.