Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 2 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the issue of software supply being royalty has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. Therefore, no addition could be made.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the issue of software supply being royalty has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. Therefore, no addition could be made.
The Tribunal held that the issue of software supply being royalty has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. Therefore, no addition could be made.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding potential prejudice from the Vivad se Vishwas settlement and the request to restore the appeal. Consequently, 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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax demand pertaining to FY 1971-72, finalized in AY 2008-09, was not allowable as a deduction in AY 2010-11, but directed its allowance in AY 2009-10. The disallowance of statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 83,755 was deleted as the payments were made during the year.
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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on CBDT circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, which the current appeal's tax effect fell below.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the settlement.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act and had paid the determined tax amount. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned, as per various judicial precedents. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax demand pertaining to FY 1971-72, finalized in AY 2008-09, was not allowable as a deduction in AY 2010-11, but directed its allowance in AY 2009-10. The disallowance of statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 83,755 was deleted as the payments were made during the year.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee availed the benefit under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to approval by the Competent Authority.
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 dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax arrears are not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.