Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the loose papers were vague, unsigned, and did not conclusively prove the alleged cash transactions for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the penalties imposed were not justified.
The Tribunal held that if the new asset purchased is by nature a residential house, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54, even if a part of it is used for commercial purposes like a clinic. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the new asset.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance can be made. Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 148 as the information received was based on suspicion and lacked independent inquiry. The addition under Section 68 was also found unsustainable due to double addition.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowances, finding that the Assessing Officer's actions were ad-hoc or based on insufficient grounds. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for identical issues.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal in a summary manner without a speaking order. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The recent amendments are prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was unjustified.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Revenue's representative, acknowledging that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the APA. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty order cannot have independent existence. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI payments is not sustainable in light of judicial precedents. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), it is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for belated payments.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), it is an allowable deduction. Therefore, no disallowance can be made for belated payments.
The Tribunal noted the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), finding no corroborative evidence for cash receipts. The denial by the other party to the agreement and the absence of any mention of cash in subsequent legal proceedings further supported the assessee's case.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated based on information from the Investigation Wing. It also confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,34,800/- as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the business purpose of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the clarification from the Secretary General of Taxation of Oman regarding tax credit is conclusive, as per High Court precedent. It also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on these points.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees do not constitute royalty as the assessee does not have a place of business in India, and customers only get access to use the services and process their own data, not to use the assessee's equipment or intellectual property.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees do not constitute royalty as the assessee does not have a place of business in India, and customers only get access to use the services and process their own data, not to use the assessee's equipment or intellectual property.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for settlement under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The tribunal accepted the request and permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that dividend income, even if eligible for tax credit under the DTAA, cannot be considered exempt income for the purpose of Section 14A disallowance. It also held that horticulture expenses were business-related and not personal, especially for a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal was informed that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees do not constitute royalty as the assessee does not have a place of business in India, and customers only get access to use the services and process their own data, not to use the assessee's equipment or intellectual property.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the issue had become academic due to the deletion of the penalty by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that belated payment of employee's contribution to EPF and ESI should not be treated as deemed income. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' PF & ESI contributions is covered by the Delhi High Court's judgment in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that belated payment of employee's contribution to EPF & ESI should not be treated as disallowance. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ESOP expenses are deductible business expenditure, following established precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts and ITAT benches. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, held that the disallowance of increased salary payments to directors was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the payments were supported by board resolutions and the directors paid taxes at the highest rate.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that making additions for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 based on the same documents for which income was already offered and taxed in AY 2008-09 amounts to double addition, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to ESI & PF deposited before the return filing due date is not sustainable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the collection charges received by the assessee from AAI are not income derived from the operation of aircraft. These charges are considered service fees for collecting and remitting UDF, and thus taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating no disallowance is warranted when no exempt income is earned. It also upheld the deletion of ad-hoc disallowances for wages and power expenses, finding no specific instances of unverifiable expenses.
The Tribunal held that following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision, delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if made before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, is allowable as a deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.