Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an investor, not a trader, and the transactions were not non-genuine. The loss incurred on the sale of HCL Technologies shares should be treated as a capital loss.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that no separate adjustment for outstanding receivables was required as it was already factored into working capital adjustments. It also ruled that 'Zylog Systems Ltd.' and 'Acropetal Technologies Ltd.' were not valid comparables.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of markups on services was not justified, especially when similar services rendered by the assessee were accepted. The provision for warranty was allowed based on past experience and regular practice. However, the provision for anticipated losses was not allowed due to lack of cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of markups on services was not justified, especially when similar services rendered by the assessee were accepted. The provision for warranty was allowed based on past experience and regular practice. However, the provision for anticipated losses was not allowed due to lack of cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings could continue against the company under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee, being filed by directors without locus standi after IRP appointment, could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan taken for acquiring a capital asset cannot be taxed under Section 41(1) as it is not a trading liability. The Tribunal also directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of liability written back related to capital assets.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that interest income earned on bank FDRs should be netted off against interest expenditure.
The ITAT held that no proceedings could continue against the company under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee, being filed by directors without locus standi after the IRP appointment, could not survive.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal, in view of the request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings could continue against the company under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee, being filed by directors without locus standi after IRP appointment, could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESOP expenses was incorrect, as the expenditure was ascertained and incurred in line with SEBI guidelines. The Delhi High Court's decision in Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. was also cited as precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the exchange rate fluctuation loss capitalized to the fixed assets. This decision was based on a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessment years are not permissible if they are not based on incriminating documents found during the search. The assessments were considered unabated as the period for issuing notices under Section 143(2) had expired before the search.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the assessee was under liquidation and the appeal should have been filed against the Official Liquidator. The appeal was also filed beyond the limitation period.
The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which allowed depreciation on such assets. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was directed to be deleted.
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 the provision made by the bank, even if termed as 'Provision for NPA', was in substance for bad and doubtful debts and eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in similar cases for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently revised its accounts to include the provision, and this revision was approved by the AGM. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following a previous decision regarding the defined contribution pension scheme. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific grounds related to Section 14A and bank guarantee expenses being dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(b) deals with disallowance of excessive or unreasonable expenditure, not with estimating income or receipts. The AO's action of estimating profit based on this section was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal order was passed without effectively hearing the assessee. The CIT(A) failed to provide notice that the written submissions were inadequate, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee an opportunity to make good their submissions if they were considered insufficient. Since this was not done, the order cannot be upheld.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not effectively represented before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned orders were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) as the valuation report was not found to be without basis. For the addition under Section 68, it deleted the amount related to one party but restored the issue for two other parties to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal held that once the assessment order itself is quashed, the penalty imposed based on that assessment cannot be sustained. The deletion of additions by the ITAT in the quantum appeal collapses the basis for the penalty.
The Tribunal decided that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed based on CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations for the transactions. The AO had failed to bring any adverse material on record to disprove the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed four-year period. Therefore, the order withdrawing the TDS credit was not sustainable in law.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not effectively represented before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the impugned orders were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the dues to the Income-tax Department were extinguished in full as per the NCLT-approved resolution plan, following the waterfall mechanism under the IBC and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishara.
The Tribunal held that direct marketing and sales-related expenses or discounts/concessions should not be considered part of AMP expenses, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Since the assessee's adjusted gross profit margin was higher than comparable uncontrolled transactions, the TPO's adjustment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid illogical results. Similarly, expenses incurred in foreign exchange for technical services outside India should be excluded from total turnover.
The Tribunal held that direct marketing and sales-related expenses or discounts/concessions should not be considered part of AMP expenses, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Since the assessee's adjusted gross profit margin was higher than comparable uncontrolled transactions, the TPO's adjustment was deleted.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid illogical results. Similarly, expenses incurred in foreign exchange for technical services outside India should be excluded from total turnover.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that merely preferring a claim that is unacceptable to the Revenue does not automatically lead to a penalty. The penalty was deemed unsustainable as the claim was based on material furnished by the assessee and involved a debatable issue.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee regarding the source of investment for property renovation, as no adequate opportunity was provided by the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee regarding the source of investment for property renovation, as no adequate opportunity was provided by the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. The CIT(A) had noted that no incriminating material was found during the search and that no proceedings were pending or abated at the time of the search.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, a mere disallowance of a claim, even if not legally tenable, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal issue of non-service of notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide these legal grounds.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the TDS certificates for certain parties and conduct an inquiry for another, partly allowing the appeal on this ground. It also deleted the disallowance of interest on advances for machinery, following a previous order in the assessee's own case. The addition for excessive bill discounting charges was confirmed.