Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning TDS credit and deduction of education cess. It directed the AO to allow TDS credit for merged entities and granted deduction for education cess, but rejected the claim for dividend distribution tax.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that no addition was called for on account of purchases from the sundry creditors after examining the reconciliation statements and supporting documents. Regarding the interest on borrowed funds, the Tribunal held that it should be treated as revenue expenditure and not capitalized, directing the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and showed a non-application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed void-ab-initio, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and showed a non-application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed void-ab-initio, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of stock difference was unsustainable as there was no quantitative discrepancy, nor were the books of account rejected. The disallowance of interest was also deleted, as the assessee had substantial interest-free funds available to cover the advance given.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the documents submitted by the assessee. To ensure justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search for the impugned assessment year, the addition for bogus purchases was not sustainable. Furthermore, only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases could be added, and since the assessee had already offered profit on these sales, no further addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. by not disposing of the assessee's objections with a speaking order. This failure vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality does not apply, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title was also held to be inapplicable, based on prior ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. by not disposing of the assessee's objections with a speaking order. This failure vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the former IRP was invalid and not maintainable. The correct IRP was identified as Mr. Sandeep Mahajan.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file an application for condonation of delay, which the CIT(A) was to consider.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment in law cannot impose a tax withholding liability with retrospective effect. The tax withholding obligation should be based on the law existing at the time of payment.
The Tribunal held that payments for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Consequently, such payments do not give rise to income taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous due to subsequent events and the dismissal of its own appeal. The assessee's cross-objection and appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis in the assessee's hands was infructuous as the same addition was confirmed substantively in the hands of another assessee. Regarding the rental income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was a deemed owner of the property due to a lease exceeding 12 years, entitling him to standard deduction.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that receipts on account of 'equipment lost in hole' are not includible in gross revenue, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Similarly, service tax receipts were also held to be not includible in gross revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for non-attendance due to reasonable cause. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee and verifying evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous due to subsequent events and the dismissal of its own appeal. The assessee's cross-objection and appeal were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that charging interest under Section 234A is mandatory but consequential. The Assessing Officer was directed to charge interest as per law, considering a previous consolidated order by the Tribunal for multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd has settled the issue. Payments for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not royalty for the use of copyright and are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits by considering the documents filed, especially since the assessee was a non-resident and represented by his elderly mother. The CIT(A)'s dismissal without deciding the issue was not justified.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) found the issue covered in favor of the assessee by a Delhi High Court decision for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal, respectfully following the High Court's binding decision, declined to interfere.
The assessee's counsel requested withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's request to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices needed consideration. The assessee expressed willingness to appear before the CIT(A).