Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 3 of 5
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal accepted the request.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, held that Section 14A applies only if exempt income is actually received or receivable. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was quashed, the impugned revisionary order under Section 263 could not stand. Therefore, the revisionary order was also quashed.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Department had no objection.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of security guard salaries, finding the assessee's confirmations sufficient. It allowed the disallowance of shop and godown rent for statistical purposes due to insufficient documentation. The issue of proportionate interest on advances was remanded to the AO for further substantiation of commercial expediency. The addition for estimated household expenses was deleted as it was based on surmises.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the request from both the assessee and the revenue to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, 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 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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on 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 in light 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 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 based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind to record a valid satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), specifically regarding whether it was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable merely because the Assessing Officer treated business loss as speculative loss, especially when the assessee's view was plausible due to complex legal issues and judicial interpretations. Additionally, the penalty notice was found to be bad in law for not specifying the limb under which proceedings were initiated.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance of interest expenditure but partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenses. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow TDS credit as per law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed previous ITAT decisions regarding exemption under sections 11 & 12, dismissing the Revenue's ground. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow it, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in DIT(Exemption) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee commission should not be segregated and should be benchmarked on a combined approach using TNMM, as done in previous years. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were partly allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance of interest expenditure but partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenses. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow TDS credit as per law.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh investigation, the penalty does not survive. The Assessing Officer is directed to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the completion of fresh assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 10AA. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed as the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee up to the High Court.
The ITAT held that the assessment order was invalid because it was passed without a draft assessment order, which is required when the TPO's order necessitates a variation in income. The CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the opening stock as unexplained income. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency, noting that the assessee's trading results and stock had been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. The Delhi High Court's decision with similar facts was also considered persuasive.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Minimum Guarantee Royalty paid for film distribution rights was not 'Royalty' under Section 194J, thus Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. Regarding the Rs. 20 lacs, it was found to be recorded in the assessee's books, and the addition was based on suspicion without material evidence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have provided the assessee with sufficient opportunity to reconcile the difference between AIR information and its books. A mere mismatch should not lead to an addition without such opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, noting that a proper opportunity might not have been granted.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates reference to the Dispute Resolution Panel, was introduced w.e.f. April 1, 2009, and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal excluded certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity or significantly higher turnover. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim for deduction of education cess. The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the allocation of corporate expenses for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C/153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search that pertains to the assessment years in question. Since no such material was linked to the additions or the assessee's assessment years, the additions were beyond the scope of the sections.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form No.3. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal excluded certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity or significantly higher turnover. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim for deduction of education cess. The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the allocation of corporate expenses for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal excluded certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis due to functional dissimilarity or significantly higher turnover. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim for deduction of education cess. The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the allocation of corporate expenses for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that the dominant purpose of investment is irrelevant for Section 14A disallowance, and expenses must be apportioned. The disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.