Loading ITAT cases…
540 orders · Page 2 of 11
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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 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 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and obtained a final settlement. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO failed to prove the collection of capitation fee or any violation of Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not generated any surplus and that the AO's computation was based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case without adjournment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal held that additions made on debatable issues do not automatically imply furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Department's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's non-appearance despite repeated opportunities and unserved notices. This decision followed precedents from the Supreme Court and Delhi Tribunal.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty. This was because the substantial addition on which the penalty was based had itself been deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it was initiated at the direction of the CIT, not based on the AO's independent 'reason to believe' about escapement of income. The CIT's direction stemmed from the inability to invoke Section 263 due to time bar.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Regarding employee PF contributions, the Tribunal upheld the deletion as the payment was made before the return filing due date, following judicial precedents.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that losses suffered by the assessee as a guarantor in the ordinary course of business should be treated as a business loss eligible for write-off. The surplus on the sale of mortgaged land was also considered taxable capital gain.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the ex parte order passed due to non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the capital gains were already recorded in the books of accounts, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. The decision followed precedents from the Delhi High Court.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that losses suffered by the assessee as a guarantor in the ordinary course of business should be treated as a business loss eligible for write-off. The surplus on the sale of mortgaged land was also considered taxable capital gain.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee is directed to appear and substantiate their case without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Department's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Department's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn.
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 considered the application moved by the assessee's counsel. Based on the application, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IC due to substantial expansion and a revised initial assessment year. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, finding sufficient own funds for investments.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order. It held that if the AO accepts the assessee's objections and does not assess or reassess the income that formed the basis of the reopening notice, the AO cannot independently assess income under other issues that come to notice subsequently.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IC deduction, noting it was a subsequent year and the initial year's claim was allowed. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate the inadequacy of the assessee's suo motu disallowance.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when all material facts were disclosed. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance received by a Development Officer of LIC are exempt under Section 10(14) of the IT Act. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.