Loading ITAT cases…
297 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the issues were covered by its prior decision for AY 2015-16 and the Revenue had not filed an appeal against that order, the additions made for the current year should be deleted. Interest under Sections 234B and 234C were consequential.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear and substantiate its grounds or controvert the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly decided that certain grounds did not emanate from the assessment order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme benefits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for travelling expenses, including ticket bookings and business purposes like litigation consultations and divesting investments. It also found miscellaneous expenses to be petty and business-related, thus deleting the ad-hoc disallowance.
The ITAT found that the assessee had indicated a delay and provided reasons for it in Form 35, even though they failed to appear before the CIT(A). Therefore, to ensure a just decision, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow 50% of the expenditure. It found that the assessee did not provide satisfactory justification for the expenses claimed, and there was a possibility of duplication of expenses with another entity.
The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since both parties agreed, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal heard the submissions and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on securities was identical to previous years where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee, a decision upheld by the High Court. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee based on High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings or provide a contrary binding decision.
The Tribunal held that the indexed interest cost incurred for acquiring shares out of borrowed funds should be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition. For Section 14A, the disallowance needs to be re-worked considering only investments that yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not fall within the purview of managerial, consultancy, or technical services, and payments for freight and logistics could not be treated as technical services. Similar findings were made for GAM and lease line charges.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not fall within the purview of managerial, consultancy, or technical services, and payments for freight and logistics could not be treated as technical services. Similar findings were made for GAM and lease line charges.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the cancellation of leasehold rights, which constituted the source of profit-making for the assessee, is a capital receipt. The Assessing Officer's view was considered plausible, and therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for employee's contributions to PF/ESI even if deposited late, provided the actual payment is made before the filing of the return. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, for principles of natural justice, the remaining grounds (1 & 2) were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal before the ITAT. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned. It also held that ESOP expenses are allowable, and late deposit of ESI/EPF contributions, if paid before filing the return, are deductible.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is attracted only when expenditure is incurred in the financial year and the assessee fails to explain its source. In this case, the amount was a transfer entry from a previous year's capital work-in-progress, not fresh expenditure in the current year, and the source was explained through audited books.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found for the assessment year in question, the invocation of section 153A was without legal basis.
The Tribunal held that the usage of the property is the determining factor for its nature (residential or commercial) for the purpose of Section 54F. The Tribunal found that the property in question was used for business purposes, supported by an inspector's report and payment of conversion charges.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) as the transactions were in the ordinary course of business and not in the nature of a loan or advance. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the share transactions. Numerous factors, including price manipulation, lack of due diligence, and involvement of brokers found to be doing irregularities by SEBI, indicated that the transactions were not genuine.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders as the assessee failed to provide material evidence to support their contention that tax was not deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the share transactions. Numerous factors, including price manipulation, lack of due diligence, and involvement of brokers found to be doing irregularities by SEBI, indicated that the transactions were not genuine.
The Tribunal, noting that the facts were identical to a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's husband's case, restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to make necessary inquiries and decide afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects were not taxable in India under Section 44BBB or the India-Japan DTAA. It also held that Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. was not a dependent agent PE of the assessee, and no profits were attributable to the assessee's operations in India.
The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects were not taxable in India under Section 44BBB or the India-Japan DTAA. It also held that Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. was not a dependent agent PE of the assessee, and no profits were attributable to the assessee's operations in India.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar in the Income Tax Act against computing, carrying forward, and setting off of losses or surplus expenditure over income for charitable trusts. The decision of the CIT(A) was affirmed.
The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was vitiated due to various procedural defects, including incorrect reasons recorded and lack of proper satisfaction. The additions made on merits were also challenged on grounds of lack of evidence and violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rent amortization for lands in Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin to the AO for de novo consideration. It also directed the AO to verify the assessee's own funds versus borrowed funds for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), and upheld the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The deletion of dividend income and consequential tax credit relief under the DTAA was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to obtain a valuation report from the Valuation Officer as per Section 50C of the Act and provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are deductible as business expenditure, following various High Court and Special Bench rulings. The issue of profit on sale of assets and MAT credit were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and rectification.
The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rent amortization for lands in Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin to the AO for de novo consideration. It also directed the AO to verify the assessee's own funds versus borrowed funds for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), and upheld the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The deletion of dividend income and consequential tax credit relief under the DTAA was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the VSVS scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals should be withdrawn and dismissed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the assessee's e-submission and providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the assessee's participation in the VSVS. Both parties agreed that the appeals should be withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-appearance indicated a lack of seriousness. However, to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the VSVS scheme. Both parties agreed that the appeals should be withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the assessee's participation in the VSVS. Both parties agreed that the appeals should be withdrawn and dismissed.