Loading ITAT cases…
226 orders · Page 2 of 5
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's addition was based on a retracted statement and that the assessee had provided documentary evidence of purchases. The Tribunal also noted that similar transactions were accepted in group cases and by the Income Tax Settlement Commission.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a history of non-compliance with statutory notices, and there was no reasonable cause for the failure. The notices were sent to the correct address, and the assessee did not establish any valid reason for not complying. The additional evidence sought to be produced was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment order passed after the due date is void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the audited financial statements during assessment proceedings due to factors beyond its control. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment considering the audited financials.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The additions were deleted as no evidence of accommodation entries was found.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The additions were deleted as no evidence of accommodation entries was found.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but should be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that copyright and broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct legal rights recognized separately by law.
The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for both grounds of appeal. For the first ground, it restored the issue of allowability of expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the second ground, it also restored the issue of the sham transaction to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational additions (transfer pricing adjustments) were deleted in prior years, the superstructure (penalty) should also fall. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational additions (transfer pricing adjustments) were deleted in prior years, the superstructure (penalty) should also fall. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for the DCF method for valuing unquoted equity shares as prescribed under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules and obtained a valuation report from a chartered accountant, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the rule. The Tribunal noted that when the assessee opts for a specific valuation methodology prescribed by the rules, the AO/CIT(A) do not have the power or authority to change such methodology and adopt a different one, such as the book value method. The Tribunal observed that the AO was unable to pinpoint specific inaccuracies in the DCF valuation report, other than the general observation that projected results did not match actual results. It was reasoned that variations between projected and actual figures are expected and do not necessarily invalidate a valuation report, which is inherently based on future projections and market conditions at a specific point in time. The Tribunal cited the principle that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it must be done in that manner alone. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (177 ITD 809) which held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute their own value for the value determined by the prescribed methods. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the net asset value method was deemed unjustified and liable to be deleted. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within the prescribed time limit and at the correct address. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were illegal and the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was not sustainable as the issue had been considered in original assessment and Section 154 proceedings, and there was no new tangible material. The audit objection was not considered fresh information in this context.
The Tribunal held that the payments received for bandwidth services are not taxable as royalty. This is because the India-Singapore Tax Treaty does not define 'royalty' to include transmission by satellite, cable, optic fiber, or similar technology, and the treaty provisions are more beneficial to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as it was engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. It also allowed the deletion of additions related to personal expenses and Section 14A disallowances.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the provision for professional cost. It agreed with the lower authorities that the assessee had not followed a consistent accounting policy, making the provision a contingent liability and thus not an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were not in accordance with law because the penalty notice was defective for not specifying the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a demand notice and initiation of penalty proceedings along with the draft assessment order prematurely concluded the assessment proceedings. Therefore, any subsequent orders passed were considered non-est (invalid).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to personal expenses, carbon credits, and legal/professional expenses. The Tribunal found that expenses incurred by a company cannot be personal and that carbon credits are capital receipts.
The tribunal, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, decided various grounds of appeal. Specifically, the issue of registration charges was decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the amounts collected were not income but held in trust for registration purposes.
The tribunal, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, decided various grounds of appeal. Specifically, the issue of registration charges was decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the amounts collected were not income but held in trust for registration purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to personal expenses, carbon credits, and legal/professional expenses. The Tribunal found that expenses incurred by a company cannot be personal and that carbon credits are capital receipts.
The Tribunal held that the taxpayer is entitled to deduction under Section 10AA on interest earned on fixed deposits and miscellaneous income. It also ruled that notice pay recoveries from employees are part of business profits eligible for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the advance was received and repaid through proper banking channels, and the transaction was reflected in the books of both parties, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not strike off either of the twin charges (concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty order was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses were not royalty under the DTAA, and thus, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant TDS credit upon verification.
The Tribunal held that interest is allowable under Section 244A on the refund of taxes till the date of issue of refund. However, it clarified that there is no provision for interest on interest. The matter regarding interest on taxes was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO, directing him to examine the evidence and decide the matter afresh after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. This decision was based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Tata Elxsi Ltd and Excel Infoways Ltd from the comparable companies list for transfer pricing. It allowed the claim for forex loss, holding it as not speculative, and restored the issue of donation disallowance to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the finding that the land was agricultural and outside the specified limits for non-agricultural land. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A, noting the AO's failure to record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the irrecoverable advances written off by the assessee should be allowed as a business loss under Section 28/37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on various judicial precedents. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that since documents belonging to the assessee were seized during the search on the third party, the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, not Section 147. Therefore, the notice and assessment under Section 147 were void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs was not justified as it was based on a cancelled money receipt without further corroboration or inquiry with the buyer. The assessee had only agreed to offer Rs. 11 lakhs to buy peace of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was for the sale of shares and not for equalization of family interests (owelty). However, it allowed the appeal on the issue of indexed cost of acquisition, directing the AO to follow the previous order.
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses were not royalty under the DTAA, and thus, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant TDS credit upon verification.
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses were not royalty under the DTAA, and thus, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant TDS credit upon verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that software license fees are revenue expenditure as they do not create enduring benefits for the taxpayer. Similarly, training expenses were also treated as revenue expenditure, as the trained workforce may leave the company. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 10B as per DRP's directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.