Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 8 of 14
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no fresh additions could be made under Section 153A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order which had already granted substantial relief regarding the Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal held that general administrative costs, advertisement, brokerage, and selling costs are revenue expenditures and need not be capitalized. Expenses incurred for running business operations, which do not form part of 'work in progress', are revenue expenditures.
The Tribunal held that 'Just Dial Ltd.' was not a comparable company for market support services due to functional dissimilarities. Regarding administrative support services, the Tribunal found that services were indeed rendered and availed, and the 5% markup charged was acceptable, thus no adjustment was required.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the AMP adjustment. It noted that the Bright Line Test used by the AO was rejected by the Delhi High Court and that the assessee was already remunerated for marketing expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated based on incriminating material found in a third-party search, Section 153C should have been applied, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment proceedings under Section 147 were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) lacked the necessary jurisdiction to pass the assessment order as there was no valid order under Section 120(4)(b) or Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring the case. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated and illegal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was concluded and no incriminating material was found during the search related to the cash deposits, the addition made under section 153A was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case without adjournments.
The Tribunal held that all issues raised by the revenue were covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred by the assessee are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) as they are for the purpose of business and not capital in nature. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the untenability of the assessee's explanation and examine the nature of expenditure.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred by the assessee are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) as they are for the purpose of business and not capital in nature. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the untenability of the assessee's explanation and examine the nature of expenditure.
The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the documentary evidence and explanations regarding the cash deposits after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued by the Department. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning working capital adjustment and relocation expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and their cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments were completed and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning working capital adjustment and relocation expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and their cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the written-off amount constituted a debt that had previously reduced the assessee's profit by lowering import costs. Since the debt was confirmed as unrecoverable by an advocate's report, it correctly fell under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law if a notice under Section 143(2) was not issued and served within the statutory time limit. It noted that Section 292BB does not cure the complete absence of a notice, only infirmities in its service. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments were completed and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under Section 153A were not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was upheld.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning working capital adjustment and relocation expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and their cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning working capital adjustment and relocation expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and their cross-objections were dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning working capital adjustment and relocation expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and their cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the assessee owned more than one residential property at the time of sale. It also clarified that a farmhouse can be considered a residential property for Section 54F purposes. The Tribunal further found that the credit card expenses were business-related and reimbursed, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued by the Department. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO reopened the case solely based on information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Consequently, the subsequent assessment was void ab initio.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO should have conducted further inquiries before disbelieving the evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, also applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of TDS payable and electricity expenses, finding that the assessee had provided plausible explanations and the issues were decided in their favor in preceding years. The disallowance of interest paid to partners was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation as per Section 40(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of TDS payable and electricity expenses, finding that the assessee had provided plausible explanations and the issues were decided in their favor in preceding years. The disallowance of interest paid to partners was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation as per Section 40(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer was not maintainable due to a moratorium granted by the Supreme Court against proceedings involving the assessee's parent company and its subsidiaries. Additionally, on merits, the issue was covered by previous favorable decisions for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that marketing expenses, even if deferred in books, are revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction in the year incurred, provided they meet the test under Section 37. The concept of deferred revenue expenditure is not recognized under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which applies to pending appeals, renders the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and having become infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the assessee's detailed arguments and evidence. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that payments made for software are not royalty, following the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the department had accepted it. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the issue on merits, thus failing to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a certificate (Annexure A) showing the recipient had declared the interest income and filed its return. However, the required Form 26A was not submitted. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of compliance with the first proviso to Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that excise duty refund is a revenue receipt and forms part of profits and gains from business. Therefore, it cannot be reduced from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming depreciation.
The Tribunal held that a debatable issue cannot be a rectifiable mistake apparent from record. Furthermore, it relied on the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment, stating that computation under Section 115JB(2)(f) should be made without resorting to Section 14A.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that since the assessment was concluded and no incriminating material was found, the addition under section 153A was invalid. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the net profit determined by the lower authorities already accounted for all expenses.