Loading ITAT cases…
508 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation, which could not be claimed in the previous year due to the proviso to Section 32(1)(iia), is allowable in the succeeding assessment year. The purpose of the provision is to encourage industrialization, and disallowing the balance would defeat this purpose.
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 restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in AIMIL Ltd. and Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. These judgments allow deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, even if it's after the statutory due date.
The Tribunal held that addition on account of 26AS mismatch, except for a small amount not pressed before CIT(A), was not justified without evidence of income earned and not reflected in audited books. For TDS disallowances, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of recipient's income reporting.
The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed examined the issue of share allotment and valuation, including seeking explanations from the assessee and considering the fair market value. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to collect toll is an intangible asset falling under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal also found that the assessee is the owner of the toll road for the purpose of claiming depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with the law. It found that the Assessing Officer had relied on borrowed satisfaction and failed to apply his own mind to the information, leading to errors in identifying the entities from whom funds were received.
The Tribunal held that the property was purchased as bare office space and the licensee was responsible for all fit-out works. Therefore, the income was rental income from house property, taxable under Section 22, and the CIT(A) correctly allowed interest expenses and partly deleted the addition.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee are purely revenue in nature and cannot be considered capital expenditure. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E was not leviable as the statement was filed after depositing the tax without delay. Consequently, interest under Section 220(2) was also not leviable, and interest under Section 201(1A) could not be charged as no order holding the assessee in default was passed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence and obtained a remand report which did not indicate any discrepancies. Therefore, the additions were deleted after verification of the evidence produced.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposit with evidence. The AO was directed to decide the issue after providing a due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the AO. The assessee was directed to comply with revenue notices without unnecessary adjournments and provide requested details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not valid as the primary facts were already disclosed in the Notes to Accounts and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was not based on tangible material.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad se Vishwas Act and a Form No. 5 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the deduction under Section 54H. The policy restricting land use did not negate the benefit of Section 54H, as the entire plot was purchased and the Act does not specify any percentage for house construction or vacant land.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing him to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate that the land was agricultural and to decide the issue in light of relevant Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the facts for the assessment year 2015-16 were similar to previous years where the CIT(A) had granted relief. Following the consistent view of the Tribunal in earlier years, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) can only be levied with reference to a fresh assessment order passed after remand, not the original set-aside order. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow prior period expenses as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by Bain India to Bain USA were primarily for reimbursement of expenses and did not constitute FTS or royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS on these amounts.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the reasons provided to the assessee differed from those recorded by the AO and that there was a lack of application of mind by the AO and approving authorities. Consequently, the additions made were also set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The AO was directed to determine if the amount was chargeable to tax as a deemed dividend after considering the assessee's claim of it being a business transaction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities but did not attend proceedings diligently. However, in the interest of natural justice, the order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's objection regarding the repayment of a loan and the contribution of other legal heirs. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not merely dismissed it for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest on NPAs, provision for audit fee, and provision for embezzlement by the CIT(A) was justified. The Tribunal found that the provision for audit fee was an ascertained liability and the embezzlement loss was an actual loss incurred in the regular course of business with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that depreciation at 60% is allowable on software, following binding precedents from the Madras High Court and ITAT Delhi.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 55,000/-. The issue of job work expenses was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. Consequently, all claims, including those from the Income-tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the claim without considering the reversal entry due to fire damage. The issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. Consequently, all claims, including those from the Income-tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, but the assessee was not serious in attending the proceedings. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored it to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal dismissed the disallowance related to TDS on interest to Prasar Bharti, following a coordinate bench decision. For leave encashment, the tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction on an actual payment basis as per the Apex Court ruling, partly allowing the ground.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest on NPAs, provision for audit fee, and provision for embezzlement by the CIT(A) was justified. The Tribunal found that the provision for audit fee was an ascertained liability and the embezzlement loss was an actual loss incurred in the regular course of business with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest on NPAs, provision for audit fee, and provision for embezzlement by the CIT(A) was justified. The Tribunal found that the provision for audit fee was an ascertained liability and the embezzlement loss was an actual loss incurred in the regular course of business with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the increase in sundry creditors was on account of trade purchases and sub-contractor payments, which were reflected in the audited financial statements. Since the purchases and sales were accepted and the books of account were not rejected, the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions sent via email and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds of a minor delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. Consequently, all claims, including those from the Income-tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest on NPAs, provision for audit fee, and provision for embezzlement by the CIT(A) was justified. The Tribunal found that the provision for audit fee was an ascertained liability and the embezzlement loss was an actual loss incurred in the regular course of business with sufficient evidence.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that two of the comparable companies were not functionally similar and lacked proper data, directing their exclusion. It also found that the margin for another comparable, previously accepted and not challenged by the revenue, should be maintained.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing him to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was also directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that a valid notice under Section 148 is a mandatory condition precedent for reassessment. Since the notice was not served at the assessee's correct address, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of additions/disallowances on merits.