Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 7 of 14
The Tribunal held that since the funds were advanced to a wholly-owned subsidiary for business purposes, and there was a nexus between the expenditure and the business, no disallowance of interest on borrowed funds could be made. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee and restored the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case and decide the issue on merits, including the additional ground.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares at the same purchase price, supported by share certificates, sale bills, and bank statements, did not warrant being treated as an unexplained cash credit. The addition was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rejecting additional evidence on unsustainable grounds and deciding the appeal without considering them was not in accordance with the law. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 common administrative expenses for Section 80IC deduction should be allocated based on turnover, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. For the Section 14A issue, due to incomplete facts, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted for certain disallowances like non-deduction of TDS and expenses disallowed under Section 40A(3). For machinery maintenance expenses, the Tribunal found no mala fide or untenable claim and directed the penalty to be obliterated.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The disallowance of depreciation was deleted as it was allowed in the first year of capitalization. The addition under Section 14A was restricted to dividend income. Club expenses and late payment of PF/ESI were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following a Delhi High Court judgment in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The High Court had held that the assessee did not have a PE in India and no income was attributable to it.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the VSVS Scheme and had moved a separate application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee satisfies them about the proper maintenance of books, which formed the basis of the audit reports.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee satisfies them about the proper maintenance of books, which formed the basis of the audit reports.
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 since the father-in-law of the assessee, who was the head of the joint family, had declared an amount equivalent to the total undisclosed jewellery found as his undisclosed income, no separate addition in the hands of the assessee was warranted.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the books of account solely based on the non-availability of creditors at their given addresses and without attempting to locate them was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that for subsequent years, the assessee's books were accepted under section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of CCM was not sustainable and dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend income.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee satisfies them about the proper maintenance of books, which formed the basis of the audit reports.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions without sufficient evidence, relying on presumptive calculations. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of electricity and foreign travel expenses, finding the assessee's justifications insufficient. However, the disallowance of payments to the International Bar Association was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. The Tribunal also allowed the additional ground regarding the deductibility of cess, education cess, and higher education cess.
The Tribunal held that since the corresponding assessment order and quantum additions were already cancelled by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty levied on those additions could not survive. The penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the repayment of loans as an application of income. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT circular and the tax effect.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee satisfies them about the proper maintenance of books, which formed the basis of the audit reports.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee demonstrates that proper books of account were maintained, forming the basis of the audit reports.
The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence regarding the maintenance of books of account. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after the assessee provides satisfaction regarding the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of CCM was not sustainable and dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend income.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, agreeing that no expenditure was incurred to earn the meager exempt income. The Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between expenses and exempt income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the VSV scheme. However, it was subject to the condition that if the dispute was not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee could seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on loose papers without corroborative evidence are not permissible. It directed that only the profit element of the unrecorded entries should be taxed. The disallowances under Section 40A(3) were upheld, while additions for notional interest and ad-hoc expenses were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for most purchases, including identity, address, PAN, and banking channel payments. Only purchases from M/s Apex Marketing Company for Rs. 9,76,321/- lacked complete substantiation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act and had paid the settlement amount. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals if the dispute for AY 2014-15 is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals if the dispute for AY 2014-15 is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal noted that the appeal had been settled under the VSV scheme, leading to a full and final settlement of the outstanding demand. Consequently, the appeal was 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 reinstatement of the appeal.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the bad debt claim considering the predecessor company's position and to reconsider the issues related to assessed income, MAT credit, and advance tax/TDS. The issue of education cess was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
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 due to the CIRP and the moratorium, no proceedings against the corporate debtor can be pursued. The rights and liabilities of the parties are subject to the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, neither a fixed place PE nor an agency PE. Consequently, profits attributable to Indian operations could not be taxed as business profits in India under the DTAA.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to the sale of the shop below market value and agricultural income, finding the CIT(A)'s orders to be correct. However, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, implying some grounds were not fully accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on an estimation without proper findings or basis, making it unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s observation regarding the necessity of District Magistrate's approval for scrap sale was also noted.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on an estimation without proper findings or basis, making it unsustainable. The CIT(A)'s observation regarding the necessity of District Magistrate's approval for scrap sale was also noted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the fair market value determined by the DVO should be considered as the full value of consideration for computing capital gains, as per Section 50C(2) and (3) of the IT Act and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions for the assessee, held that the company did not have a PE in India. Consequently, income from storage product sales and service fees were not taxable in India. Interest under section 234B was set aside, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.