Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 9 of 9
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal held that Section 54B is pari materia with Section 54 and, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions, found that investments made till the extended due date of filing the return are eligible. Both the Section 54B deduction and the disallowance for fencing and commission expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague, lacked specific details, and did not demonstrate independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The approval from the Principal CIT was also considered mechanical.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's stay in the UK exceeded 183 days, making Article 16(2) inapplicable. The provisions of Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 24 of the India-UK DTAA were found to be applicable, validating the assessee's claim for foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal of the revenue was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a wrong show-cause notice cannot lead to a right action. Since the PCIT continued proceedings with an incorrect show-cause notice after the assessee pointed out the error, the order passed under Section 263 was deemed liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn, as they were settling the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal of the Revenue was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the transaction between the assessee and Dewa Enterprises was a sale and purchase, not a contract for services, and thus Section 194C was not applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of miscellaneous expenses, stating that ad hoc disallowance without specific defects or opportunity to explain is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the consideration received from the sale of software products is not royalty under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. The transaction involves the sale of copyrighted articles, not the transfer of rights to use copyright, and should be treated as business income under Article 7 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. It found that the advances were interest-free, the expenses were either supported by evidence or allowed in past assessments, and the foreign travel was for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in preventing the assessee from producing evidence to show the receipt pertained to the HUF. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. It found that the advances were interest-free, the expenses were either supported by evidence or allowed in past assessments, and the foreign travel was for business purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the expenses were revenue in nature and had been treated similarly in a prior assessment year. The loss on waiver of loans was also deemed correctly deleted as it was offered for taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions, with the 'berry ratio' as the profit level indicator. The matter was remanded to the TPO to re-examine and benchmark the transactions accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence, including party-wise details, payment modes, and TDS deductions, which were not properly appreciated by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the addition was wrongly made.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Following the Delhi High Court judgment in Chemnivest Ltd., the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated against a non-existent entity after amalgamation, rendering the assessment order void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the threshold limit set by CBDT circulars. The Revenue's Senior DR did not press the appeal.
The tribunal held that electricity duty collected by the assessee as an agent for the state government is not covered under Section 43B. It also held that TDS provisions are not applicable to wheeling/transmission charges, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the cash found in the assessee's locker (Rs. 16,33,000) could be treated as belonging to her. However, the explanations for the remaining cash were considered an afterthought and not substantiated.
The tribunal held that electricity duty collected by the assessee as an agent for the state government is not covered under Section 43B. It also held that TDS provisions are not applicable to wheeling/transmission charges, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.