Loading ITAT cases…
508 orders · Page 8 of 11
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as the AO's reasons for reopening (Rs. 88 lakhs) did not form the basis of the final assessment order (Rs. 6.01 crores). The assessment order was quashed based on the principle that if the original reason for reopening ceases to survive, the AO cannot proceed to tax other income that comes to notice subsequently.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of interest expenses back to the AO for proper adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on estimated gross profit and the addition on delayed payment of employee contributions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits, with directions for the assessee to submit documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the commission rate should be 0.50% and should only be calculated on transactions with outside parties, following its own prior decisions and the Delhi High Court's affirmation. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT invoked Section 263 on a divergent view not contemplated by the section, as the assessee had already presented details of purchases and exceptional loss to the Assessing Officer who was satisfied. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the revised return filed by the assessee was within the prescribed time limit and should be accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and evidence, and found no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed by the Director of the company, not the IRP. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the IRP to file it afresh if directed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the supporting documents. As the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on the disclosure in the balance sheet of a proprietorship concern and the reply filed by a co-owner, without finding any incriminating material during the search. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd., all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed without going into the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the hostel activity is integral to the charitable purpose of running the educational institution and not a separate business. It also ruled that depreciation on fixed assets is allowable even if their cost was treated as application of income, and that loss on sale of fixed assets cannot be claimed as a deduction when depreciation is not claimed under the block of assets concept.
The Tribunal held that the aircraft lease expenses were a business necessity due to remote factory locations and not employee benefits. Similarly, hospital and school expenses were considered necessary for business operations in remote areas and employee welfare, not taxable FBT.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had properly considered the evidence produced by the assessee, including the source of funds and creditworthiness of shareholders. The AO had failed to consider the evidence presented during assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the aircraft lease expenses were a business necessity due to remote factory locations and not employee benefits. Similarly, hospital and school expenses were considered necessary for business operations in remote areas and employee welfare, not taxable FBT.
The Tribunal held that the aircraft lease expenses were a business necessity due to remote factory locations and not employee benefits. Similarly, hospital and school expenses were considered necessary for business operations in remote areas and employee welfare, not taxable FBT.
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed clearly specified the working allowance and interest payable to partners, and the amounts paid were in accordance with these terms. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed clearly specified the working allowance and interest payable to partners, and the amounts paid were in accordance with these terms. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty without properly considering the merits of the case and without demonstrating how the assessee concealed income. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable as there was no proof of issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory time period. Following a previous decision on identical facts, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The tribunal held that the internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the provision of ITeS services, as it is more reliable than external comparables. However, it upheld the adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables from associated enterprises.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing 100% deduction under Section 80IC. This was based on the High Court's ruling in Stovekraft India, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which stated that substantial expansion before April 1, 2012, entitles an assessee to 100% deduction.
The Tribunal held that the delay in realization of receivables cannot be treated as a separate international transaction and no notional interest can be levied. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in respect of amalgamating companies.
The Tribunal held that the aircraft lease expenses were a business necessity due to remote factory locations and not employee benefits. Similarly, hospital and school expenses were considered necessary for business operations in remote areas and employee welfare, not taxable FBT.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on surplus funds deposited with banks is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions on identical issues for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since similar rent payments were accepted in the preceding and subsequent years, there was no justification for disallowing the rent in the current year as excessive. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed the TPO's action of bifurcating the assessee's operations into manufacturing and trading segments, finding sufficient financial evidence to support this division. However, it directed the exclusion of one comparable company and remanded the issue of working capital adjustment for recalculation.
The Tribunal found that the AO applied the 4% net profit rate from a previous year without considering the merits of the current year. Therefore, the appeal was remitted to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI cannot be permitted as a deduction. It respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Directors have no locus standi to file appeals once the CIRP has commenced. The appeals are not maintainable and are dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 had been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years, including by the High Court and Supreme Court. As the facts were identical, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposits of PF/ESIC contributions, if made before the filing of the return of income, are allowable expenditures. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was found not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for shifting existing plant and machinery for the purpose of continuing the business are revenue in nature. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that directors of a company undergoing CIRP have no locus standi to file appeals. Only the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) can file or pursue appeals with the consent of the Committee of Creditors.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for not deducting TDS as the payees were not identifiable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided a well-reasoned order and the Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in its findings.
The Tribunal held that directors of a company undergoing CIRP have no locus standi to file appeals. Only the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), with the consent of the Committee of Creditors, can pursue such appeals.
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 the disallowance was not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which allowed deduction if payments were made before the return filing date. The Finance Act 2021's clarification was not applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that once CIRP commences, the Directors lose their locus standi to file appeals. Only the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), with the consent of the Committee of Creditors, can pursue such matters.
The Tribunal held that since the employee's PF/ESIC contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance was warranted. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was found not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A based on specific expenses and the ratio of exempt income to total receipts. It also confirmed that the premium received on redemption of preference shares is taxable as capital gains, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. The Revenue was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect was found to be higher.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce completion certificates for properties, making the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions justified. The reliance on a previous tribunal decision was deemed not relevant due to lack of evidence regarding the status of properties.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to rebut the charges leveled by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the disallowance of expenses and determination of arm's length price.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to rebut the charges leveled by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication regarding the disallowance of expenses and determination of arm's length price.