Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 1 of 14
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that the application for approval of the gratuity trust should be considered from the date of application, not prospectively. It also ruled that dividend income received by the cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4). The issue of interest on NPA assets was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication with evidence.
The Tribunal held that provisions for anticipated losses are allowable deductions when following the completed contract method of accounting, especially when supported by accounting standards and confirmed by higher courts. It also held that interest income from FDRs, even if shown as 'income from other sources', is part of business income and available for set-off of business losses.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that all business transactions were routed through his sole bank account, and in a subsequent year, the AO accepted this. Given the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AF, the addition was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for consultancy, advertisement, equity placement, and recruitment expenses, finding them to be revenue in nature. However, the issue of delayed PF contributions was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on erroneous facts, making the assessment order bad in law. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also quashed as it lacked a basis.
The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition without issuing or serving any notice to the assessee. The Tribunal found this to be a violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, as the issues concerning depreciation on intangible assets and loss on sale of fertilizer bonds had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that the application for approval of the gratuity trust should be considered from the date of application, not prospectively. It also ruled that dividend income from UP Cooperative Federation is not deductible for cooperative banks under Section 80P(4). For NPA interest, the assessee needed to provide evidence as per RBI guidelines.
The tribunal held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income Tax Act. Therefore, all claims, including those of the Income Tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator under Section 53(1) of the Code.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on festival and gift expenses, finding it ad-hoc. It also deleted disallowances on legal and professional expenses, following precedent from the High Court. However, it rejected grounds related to insufficient opportunity and charging of interest.
The Tribunal held that the application for approval of the gratuity trust should be considered from the date of application, not prospectively. It also ruled that dividend income from UP Cooperative Federation is not deductible for cooperative banks under Section 80P(4). For NPA interest, the assessee needed to provide evidence as per RBI guidelines.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This request was made because the assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional income based on a percentage of investment was not justified, especially when no such addition was made in preceding or subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. regarding hypothetical income.
The Tribunal restored the issue of electricity expenses to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to prove incurrence and ownership of the connection. The claim for repairs and maintenance was dismissed, but the insurance claim was restored to the CIT(A). The claim for set off of brought forward business losses against interest income was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that provisions for anticipated losses are allowable deductions when following the completed contract method of accounting, especially when supported by accounting standards and confirmed by higher courts. It also held that interest income from FDRs, even if shown as 'income from other sources', is part of business income and available for set-off of business losses.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal restored the issue of warranty provision disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a speaking order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 14A disallowance, finding no reason to interfere.
The tribunal held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income Tax Act. Therefore, all claims, including those of the Income Tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator under Section 53(1) of the Code.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that the lease rent of Rs. 5,70,000/- was explained by the oral agreement with the assessee's brother, supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- for household expenses was not sufficiently controverted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal restored the issue of intra-group services to the TPO for re-examination with supporting evidence, following its own earlier decision. The appeal regarding transfer pricing adjustments was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of convertible warrants resulted in the extinguishment of rights, which constitutes a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Following previous decisions in similar cases involving group companies, the Tribunal allowed the claim for short-term capital loss.
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of HCCA Business Services and Quippo Valuers and Auctioneers Private Limited in the comparable set for benchmarking back-office support services. The Tribunal found HCCA's payroll processing services to be akin to the assessee's accounting support services and Quippo's valuation and auction services to be functionally similar business support services.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, as the issues concerning depreciation on intangible assets and loss on sale of fertilizer bonds had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure incurred as a statutory obligation was allowable. It also dismissed the revenue's appeals on issues like accrued interest, demurrage, write-off of stores, and Section 14A disallowances, relying on previous High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on festival and gift expenses, finding it ad-hoc. It also deleted disallowances on legal and professional expenses, following precedent from the High Court. However, it rejected grounds related to insufficient opportunity and charging of interest.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was bad in law. Relying on coordinate bench decisions with identical facts, the additions made u/s 69C were quashed.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the deduction. It relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that if a trust misuses its registration by returning donations in cash, its registration is liable for cancellation, and such donations are not eligible for weighted deductions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the Assessing Officer's observations regarding expenses related to turnover and mutual funds. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of expenditure or an incorrect claim does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO failed to establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially when the nature of expenses was debatable and the difference in income was explained.
The Tribunal held that the computation of book profits under Section 115JB should not include disallowances made under Section 14A. This decision followed a Special Bench ruling and High Court observations.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure incurred as a statutory obligation was allowable. It also dismissed the revenue's appeals on issues like accrued interest, demurrage, write-off of stores, and Section 14A disallowances, relying on previous High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure incurred as a statutory obligation was allowable. It also dismissed the revenue's appeals on issues like accrued interest, demurrage, write-off of stores, and Section 14A disallowances, relying on previous High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure incurred as a statutory obligation was allowable. It also dismissed the revenue's appeals on issues like accrued interest, demurrage, write-off of stores, and Section 14A disallowances, relying on previous High Court judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of HCCA Business Services and Quippo Valuers and Auctioneers Private Limited in the comparable set for benchmarking back-office support services. The Tribunal found HCCA's payroll processing services to be akin to the assessee's accounting support services and Quippo's valuation and auction services to be functionally similar business support services.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of agricultural operations on the land. The additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding capital gains were deleted, and the appeals were allowed on merit.
The Tribunal held that it is not permissible for a second AO to reopen the assessment on the same issue when an assessment order has already been passed by another AO for the same assessment year and PAN. The second assessment order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the application for approval of the gratuity trust should be considered from the date of application, not prospectively. It also ruled that dividend income received by the cooperative bank is not deductible under Section 80P(4). The issue of interest on NPA assets was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication with evidence.