Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 1 of 11
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 education cess is not in the nature of tax prohibited by Section 40(a)(ii) and is therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the Consolidated Fund but are earmarked for a specific purpose.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because it was based on the same set of documents that were already examined and considered during the original assessment. There was no fresh tangible material in the possession of the AO after the original assessment was completed.
The Tribunal held that the services provided were not FTS under the Income Tax Act or the India-US DTAA, and since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, the income was in the nature of business profits not taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions and the Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is considered the owner of the property for the purpose of the Act, even without a registered sale deed, if possession has been taken and full payment made. The benefit of deduction under Section 54F cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-registration of the conveyance deed.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses related to dealer incentive schemes and commission payments, finding them to be genuine and ascertained liabilities. However, the disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2014-15 was remanded for re-computation. The revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer should have framed the assessment in the name of the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in India. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal itself in identical cases.
The Tribunal held that the services provided were not FTS under the Income Tax Act or the India-US DTAA, and since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, the income was in the nature of business profits not taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions and the Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion after a special audit direction, making it barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This decision was based on the CBDT's circular which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer should have framed the assessment in the name of the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal held that liabilities appearing in audited accounts and not written back do not cease to exist, thus Section 41(1) is not attracted. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for foreign travel expenses and allowed the claim for losses on the Dwarka Project. The Tribunal further held that ground rent is not covered under Section 43B and is allowable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was in accordance with the CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit for appeals.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The tribunal held that education cess is not in the nature of tax disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii) and is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the consolidated fund but to a specific fund for elementary education.
The tribunal held that education cess is not in the nature of tax disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii) and is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the consolidated fund but to a specific fund for elementary education.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the gold bar purchases and the identity and creditworthiness of the parties involved. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that education cess is not a tax in the nature of income tax and is therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds are not credited to the Consolidated Fund but to a separate fund for elementary education.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of non-existent entities are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer should have framed the assessment in the name of the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement of its disputes through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and the CBDT had allowed the application. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw its appeal, and the revenue's appeal was also rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment was for the non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use technical information for manufacturing and selling products during the agreement's tenure. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and at a wrong address, vitiating the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not properly address the grounds raised regarding the legality of the notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion after a special audit direction, making it barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion after a special audit direction, making it barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The tribunal held that education cess is not in the nature of tax disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii) and is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the consolidated fund but to a specific fund for elementary education.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer should have framed the assessment in the name of the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by CPC was not justified. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., which followed the ruling in CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. The legislative intent is not to treat belated payments as deemed income. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The tribunal held that education cess is not in the nature of tax disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii) and is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the consolidated fund but to a specific fund for elementary education.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion after a special audit direction, making it barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued in the name of the minor daughter and not the assessee, and the reasons recorded also pertained to the daughter's income. The entire reassessment proceedings were therefore void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that liabilities appearing in audited accounts and not written back do not cease to exist, thus Section 41(1) is not attracted. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for foreign travel expenses and allowed the claim for losses on the Dwarka Project. The Tribunal further held that ground rent is not covered under Section 43B and is allowable.
The tribunal held that education cess is not in the nature of tax disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii) and is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The proceeds of education cess are not credited to the consolidated fund but to a specific fund for elementary education.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that liabilities appearing in audited accounts and not written back do not cease to exist, thus Section 41(1) is not attracted. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for foreign travel expenses and allowed the claim for losses on the Dwarka Project. The Tribunal further held that ground rent is not covered under Section 43B and is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed for completion after a special audit direction, making it barred by limitation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, in line with the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.