Loading ITAT cases…
383 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision on identical facts, directed the AO to delete the impugned disallowances. The Tribunal found parity of facts with earlier years where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act leads to the deemed withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as per the provisions of the Act of 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed and not maintainable due to the low tax effect, referencing CBDT circulars that enhanced the monetary threshold for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the appeal was found to be outside the circulars.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and a Form-3 had been issued. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, payments of employee's PF/ESIC contributions made before the due date of filing the income tax return were allowable as per prevailing High Court judgments. The subsequent amendment from AY 2021-22 was prospective.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated requests for adjournment and the CIT(A)'s refusal to accept additional evidence. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the admission of additional evidence after the assessee demonstrates the pre-requisites under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not applicable when the expenditure is not debited to the profit and loss account and is fully reimbursed by another entity. This decision followed a consistent line of judgments from coordinate benches and the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision for AY 2011-12 on identical facts, directed the AO to delete the impugned additions made on account of attributing profits to the PE in India.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not legally valid because the limited scrutiny guidelines directed examination of large share premium received, not the business loss on share sales. The PCIT's order dealt with a business loss, which was outside the scope of the original limited scrutiny parameters.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not applicable when the expenditure is not debited to the profit and loss account and is fully reimbursed by another entity. This decision followed a consistent line of judgments from coordinate benches and the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an identical assessment year, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the exempt income. This means the disallowance was not entirely deleted but was reduced.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeals for the same assessment year, resulting in the deletion of all additions. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not applicable when the expenditure is not debited to the profit and loss account and is fully reimbursed by another entity. This decision followed a consistent line of judgments from coordinate benches and the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal found that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s computations of notional annual value were ad-hoc. Considering the rent realized in subsequent years and the municipal value, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter back to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed two separate appeals against two different orders, not against the same order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in applying a uniform rent per square foot without considering factors like time, location, and facilities. The revenue failed to obtain ALV details from competent authorities to justify the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was no longer in existence, the penalty could not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the income received from contractors, including electricity recovery and other recoveries, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that while some disallowance under Section 14A was warranted, the amounts computed by the lower authorities were excessive. The Tribunal determined a reasonable disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeals for the same assessment year, resulting in the deletion of all additions. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was no longer in existence, the penalty could not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software constitutes the sale of a copyrighted article, not a transfer of copyright. Therefore, the revenue generated is business income and not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal held that the payments for online information subscription and reimbursement of travel expenses for pre-shipment inspection do not constitute technical services. Furthermore, since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271BA should be obliterated. It found that the assessee had a bonafide belief that the transaction was not international and later filed the required report, demonstrating no intention to evade tax.
The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act leads to the deemed withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software constitutes the sale of a copyrighted article, not a transfer of copyright. Therefore, the revenue is business income and not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal held that the provision for the loss was an ascertained liability incurred during the year, even though it was estimated and to be discharged in the future. Therefore, it was deductible in the year it was incurred.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the law as settled by various High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court, allowed deductions for such payments if made before the due date of filing the return. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the current assessment years.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the tax effect of the disputed addition being less than Rs. 50 lacs, as per CBDT Circulars.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software constitutes the sale of a copyrighted article and not a transfer of copyright. Therefore, the revenue is business income and not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the law as settled by various High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court, allowed deductions for such payments if made before the due date of filing the return. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the current assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employee's contribution towards EPF and ESI is not disallowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were prospective and not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) with effect from April 1, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal followed its own previous decision for an earlier assessment year where identical issues were decided in favor of the assessee. It found that the AO had not pointed out specific defects in the books of account or the genuineness of the payments.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee's petition was admitted by the ITSC, the AO lost exclusive jurisdiction to pass any order or levy penalty. Therefore, the penalty order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, found parity of facts. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that delayed payment of employee's contribution towards EPF and ESI is not disallowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software constitutes the sale of a copyrighted article and not a transfer of copyright. Therefore, the revenue is business income and not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and submitted the necessary forms. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved reconciliation of TDS claims and income. It decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained loan under Section 68. However, it directed the AO to provide telescoping benefit for unexplained expenditure of Rs. 13,32,207, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal held that the issue of late deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities deserves to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the seized documents indicated the assessee acted as an intermediary for payments from a financial services company to an educational society. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not confront the assessee regarding cash flow and that the AO had not doubted the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) could not be confirmed.