Loading ITAT cases…
297 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating that if employee contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance is warranted.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to examine the working capital adjustment provided by the assessee. If found correct, no adjustment should be made on notional interest on outstanding receivables, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not consider the assessee's contention of receiving a gift from his father who sold agricultural land. The Assessing Officer also did not present any contrary material. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating that if employee contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance is warranted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not passed a separate order disposing of the assessee's objections. Furthermore, the CIT(Appeals) should have examined the source of funds claimed by the assessee's father. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex parte and that evidence filed before the CIT(A) was not considered. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the AO had incorrectly concluded that the assessee declared NIL cash in hand for the previous year. The assessee had provided balance sheets and P&L accounts of his proprietorship concerns showing substantial cash in hand as of March 31, 2015. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues were identical to those already decided in favor of the assessee in previous grounds. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposits of PF/ESIC contributions 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 years under consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues were identical to those already decided in favor of the assessee in previous grounds. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the claim for bank guarantee write-off and to explain the inconsistencies in depreciation claims.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues were identical to those already decided in favor of the assessee in previous grounds. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to examine the working capital adjustment provided by the assessee. If found correct, no adjustment should be made on notional interest on outstanding receivables, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, this was subject to the condition that if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme, the assessee could seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any material to contradict the findings that the share transactions were manipulated and lacked commercial purpose.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex parte order and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal were deleted and that order had attained finality, the consequential penalty proceedings would also vitiate. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the Revenue had not controverted the CIT(A)'s finding that the share capital was received in an earlier financial year and not in the year under appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn and dismissed it, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had confirmed the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had found the reopening of assessment to be justified and had upheld the disallowance of freight charges and expenses under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposits of PF/ESIC contributions 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 years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be remotely connected to exempt income and should be removed. Finance costs should be considered on a net basis, and if interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance of finance cost is warranted. For employee and other expenses, a 1% disallowance is deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex parte order and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposits of PF/ESIC contributions 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 years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the consideration earned from the supply of CAS and Middleware products is not royalty and is not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment, following previous rulings. The issue of TDS credit was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation and proper credit.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was ab-initio invalid as it was not based on any incriminating seized material belonging to the assessee and did not have a direct correlation with the relevant assessment years. The assessment framed on this basis was annulled.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that a certificate for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had been granted. Consequently, the assessee requested the closure of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of foreign travel and business promotion expenses due to lack of evidence. However, the appeal was partly allowed, implying some relief was granted on other grounds not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee is exempted from tax, retaining the taxes paid by the assessee would render the High Court's order otiose. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for a refund of taxes paid.
The Tribunal referred the duty drawback issue back to the AO for reconciliation, stating it was a matter of reconciliation. Regarding the disallowance of telephone and internet expenses, the Tribunal found it to be without material on record and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additional evidence supported the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F. The investment in property exceeded the sale consideration, making the entire capital gain eligible for exemption.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim the cost of improvement based on architect certificates and sales tax assessments. It also allowed a portion of transfer expenses and directed the re-computation of LTCG. The agricultural income was also allowed as declared.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses were indeed for advertising and directed the disallowance to be obliterated. The issue regarding section 14A was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses were indeed for advertising and directed the disallowance to be obliterated. The issue regarding section 14A was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities and was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to determine the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D(2)(ii) for certain assessment years.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses were indeed for advertising and directed the disallowance to be obliterated. The issue regarding section 14A was not pressed by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful settlement of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses were indeed for advertising and directed the disallowance to be obliterated. The issue regarding section 14A was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal. The Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme provided a mechanism for settling tax arrears, rendering the appeal moot.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in applying the yardsticks of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) to an application under Section 12AA. The Tribunal found that HARSAC's activities, including providing specialized post-graduate degree courses in collaboration with a university, constituted education for charitable purposes under Section 2(15).
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the assessee's settlement of tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the GDA's activities, including development of townships, qualify as charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and cannot be considered business under Section 2(13). Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was not legally sustainable.