Loading ITAT cases…
431 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw both grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was resolved under the MAP with the UK. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 reassessment proceedings were illegal and void ab initio. This was because the original assessment had been completed u/s 143(3) after considering the issue of capital gains, and the reasons recorded for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that provision for impairment of assets should not be treated as operating expenditure for transfer pricing calculations. It also directed the inclusion of Candico India Ltd. as a comparable, overturning the lower authorities' rejection based on it being a loss-making company.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, stating that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the genuineness of the capital gains, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be valid.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the two specified grounds of appeal. The remaining grounds of appeal in the captioned case will be heard by the regular bench.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, stating that income tax cannot be levied on notional income without proof of actual receipt or payment. The plea of commercial expediency was also considered valid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of forfeited security deposit, treating it as a business loss. It also upheld the deletion of interest expense disallowance, finding no misuse of borrowed funds for interest-free advances. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding capital loss, noting the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance and allowed depreciation on an alternative claim.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that an LLP incurs expenses to maintain its corporate status and comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, a reasonable expenditure should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that notional interest income cannot be added when there is uncertainty regarding the ultimate collection of the principal and interest, even if the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The addition was deemed unjustified based on commercial realities and accounting standards.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to point out any defect in the assessee's books of account. The difference was solely due to the accounting treatment of capitalizing stock of stores and spares under 'Plant and Machinery', and there was no evidence of investment outside the books.
The Tribunal held that providing scholarships and educational assistance falls under the definition of 'education' as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Act. It further noted that an object beneficial to a section of the public is considered an object of general public utility.
The Tribunal noted that the argument of availability of interest-free funds was raised for the first time before it. Since this crucial aspect was not properly examined by the lower authorities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that notices from the CIT(A) were likely not served on the assessee, leading to a summary decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced its business in the relevant assessment years. Consequently, interest expenditure and other administrative expenses were allowed as business expenditure, and interest income was to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to produce the directors of M/s Baldev Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Raju Khan. The AO is to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced its business in the relevant assessment years. Consequently, interest expenditure and other administrative expenses were allowed as business expenditure, and interest income was to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had commenced its business operations in the relevant assessment years. Consequently, interest expenditure and other administrative expenses were allowed as business expenditure, and interest income was to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed under Section 144C was void ab initio because the draft assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existent company (BICIPL). The Tribunal reasoned that a valid draft assessment order is a jurisdictional requirement for Section 144C to apply, and issuing it to a non-existent entity means there can never be a valid draft order in the eyes of law, making the entire proceeding without jurisdiction. It cited the co-ordinate bench decision in FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) (P.) Ltd. to support this view, stating that a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured under Section 292B. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 56.58 crores, the Tribunal found that the secondees were in fact the appellant's own employees, and the 'A' was paying their salaries in their home country on behalf of the appellant, which constituted reimbursement to its own employees. This fact distinguished the case from Centrica India Offshore Ltd. The Tribunal also relied on AT & T Communication Services India Pvt Ltd. and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 56.58 crores. The Tribunal also directed the AO to give credit for prepaid taxes as per law. The appeal was allowed on merits, but the primary ground for allowing the appeal was the void nature of the assessment order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that 'income' includes 'loss' and therefore, if income from a particular source is exempt under Section 10(38), any loss arising from that same source is also not to be included in the computation of total income. Consequently, the assessee is not allowed to set off or carry forward such losses.
The Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee on several grounds, including the treatment of discounts to distributors as sales promotion rather than commission, trade price protection as a commercial expediency, and the disallowance of marketing expenditure for free handsets as business expenditure. However, some grounds were not adjudicated separately.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the successful completion of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme formalities. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Both the assessee's counsel and the Revenue's counsel agreed on the tax effect being below the threshold.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked the bank statements and unsecured loan details produced by the Revenue, which were allegedly furnished at the time of the search. These documents, when coupled with the statement recorded under section 132(4), could constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had overlooked the bank statements and unsecured loan details produced by the Revenue, which were allegedly furnished at the time of the search. These documents, when coupled with the statement recorded under section 132(4), could constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that payments made towards the purchase of a new residential house up to the due date of filing a belated return under Section 139(4) are allowable for deduction under Section 54F. The assessee is entitled to relief if the amount paid is equivalent to or more than the capital gains derived.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and the inclusion of others in the transfer pricing analysis, following its own prior decisions. It also held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables is required if working capital adjustment is granted and directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 10A. The issue of relocation expenses was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the basis of no past activities, as 'proposed activities' are also to be considered for registration. The Tribunal also found the reasoning regarding subscription fees to be irrelevant for refusing registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had entered into an Agreement to Sell for one of the properties before the sale of the original asset. This agreement, along with the subsequent registered transfer deed, meant the property was considered transferred on the date of the agreement, thus complying with the condition of owning only one residential house.
The Tribunal held that for the relevant assessment year, the assessee was not required to furnish the tax audit report along with the return of income; it was only to be produced on demand. The mandatory electronic uploading of the audit report was effective only from AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer failed to verify if the books of accounts were audited before the due date.
The Tribunal restored the issues related to unsecured loans from Atul Mittal (HUF) and MD Shaukat Ali back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The issue concerning the loan from Sunita Mittal was also restored to the Assessing Officer for examining the nature and source of the credit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observation of inflated expenses was not borne out by facts and that similar transactions were accepted in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the order under Section 263, which was the basis for the impugned assessment order, had been quashed. Therefore, all resultant proceedings would not survive. The appeal was dismissed as it became an academic discussion.
The Tribunal held that the rate of 18% claimed by the assessee for rent attributable to improvement and modernization was reasonable. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the portion of rent held to be capital in nature from April 1, 1998, and to examine the claim for treating 'non-compete fee' as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a demand notice and penalty notice along with the draft assessment order concluded the proceedings on the date of issuance. Consequently, all subsequent orders passed were considered non est (void).
The Tribunal quashed the Section 263 proceedings initiated by the PCIT. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 263/143(3) and the addition made therein were rendered invalid and infructuous.