Loading ITAT cases…
474 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restored to the AO for redetermination, considering previous judgments and not exceeding 10% of dividend income. It also held that payments for technical know-how were revenue expenditure, not capital, and allowed depreciation at 60% on UPS, treating it as part of computer peripherals.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not justified as the AO had made inquiries into the relevant issues. The PCIT's disagreement with the mode or extent of inquiry, without establishing that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, did not warrant revision.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 14A disallowance to the AO for redetermination, following its own precedents and Supreme Court judgments. It held that payments for technical know-how were revenue expenditure, allowing the assessee's claim. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation at 60% on UPS, considering it an integral part of a computer.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the investors.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF if deposited before the due date for filing the Income Tax Return. The disallowance made by the AO/CPC is directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition by the AO was not sustainable as the purchaser confirmed the sale price of Rs. 2,01,00,000, and the reasons for the lower sale price were provided. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was deleted as it was based on a factual error.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for technical know-how services, where the ownership of the intellectual property remained with the foreign company, is revenue expenditure. This was based on the Tribunal's own precedent for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Since the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for the Section 24(a) deduction was not sustainable as it was a bonafide and inadvertent error. The penalty for depreciation was also deleted as the CIT(A) had allowed similar claims in subsequent years. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were found to be vitiated due to a defective show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the provision for inventory obsolescence is allowable as per various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Regarding the deferred grant, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and tax the amount in the correct assessment year as it was offered for tax in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was null and void because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued within the prescribed statutory period. Therefore, the assessment could not be made on a time-barred notice.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below acted on presumption without substantive material. The assessee claimed the agreements were cancelled and the advances were refunded. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to foreign exchange losses and payments to foreign parties where TDS was not applicable. However, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenses and advances written off.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for on belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. This is based on various High Court and ITAT decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd.
The Tribunal held that disallowance for belated payment of employee's and employer's contribution to ESI and PF is not warranted if the same were remitted before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and applicable from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the TDS payable was paid within the due date prescribed by the Act and the assessee followed the cash system of accounting, the disallowance was incorrect. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal held that since the TDS payable was paid within the due date prescribed by the Act and the assessee followed the cash system of accounting, the disallowance was incorrect. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on the basis of which the penalty was levied have already been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of certain other additions, while dismissing the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of interest expenses and advances written off.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the lenders, as they were relatives/friends, filed income tax returns, and provided confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to make proper inquiries during remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of belated payments of employee's contribution towards ESI and PF was not justified. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which held that payments made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s determination regarding the non-applicability of Section 43B to employee's share of PF & ESI is unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the dismissal was primarily due to the non-finding of the fee challan.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to partners was a debatable issue and not an apparent mistake that could be rectified under Section 154. Therefore, the AO's order under Section 154 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the statutory period, rendering the assessment order null and void. Therefore, the assessment was annulled.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the amount was indeed an advance and not income for the current year, particularly by not providing independent evidence or confirmation from the payer.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were identical to a previous decision where LTCG on the sale of shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Limited was allowed. The Tribunal noted that SEBI had revoked its ban on the company and found no adverse evidence of price manipulation. Therefore, the LTCG was considered genuine and exempt under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of certain other additions, while dismissing the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of interest expenses and advances written off.
The Tribunal held that disallowing professional expenses merely because a business activity did not materialize in the current year is not a prudent approach. Expenses incurred for feasibility studies or exploring business opportunities within the existing line of business are revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that disallowance for belated payment of employee's and employer's contribution to ESI and PF is not warranted if the same were remitted before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and applicable from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to sustain a part of the addition, finding it justifiable and reasonable given the mixing of taxable and exempt items in the assessee's P&L account. The rule of consistency was not applied due to differing facts.
The Tribunal decided the appeal on multiple grounds. It allowed the appeal regarding the repayment of secured loan as application of income. However, it dismissed the appeal concerning the addition on account of cash deposits and the charging of interest.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was invalid due to a complete non-application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was null and void because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued within the prescribed statutory period. Therefore, the assessment could not be made on a time-barred notice.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees were not in the nature of FTS/FIS, nor royalty, and were not taxable in India as the assessees did not have a PE. The agreements, even if interlinked, did not automatically make the service fees ancillary to the license fees.
The Tribunal held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are not applicable to bonus shares. The issuance of bonus shares is a capitalization of profits and does not result in the receipt of property without consideration or for inadequate consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for registration was filed within the prescribed time. The Commissioner's rejection based on the delay was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents to substantiate the loan, including confirmations, bank statements, and TDS deduction on interest. However, the CIT(A) had pointed out discrepancies regarding the repayment of the loan. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to GTIL and GT UK LLP were not FTS or royalty as per the India-UK Tax Treaty. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained cash credit without proper verification and remanded the matter to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was earned and also upheld the restricted ad-hoc disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of software products is not royalty under the India-Singapore Tax Treaty as it pertains to copyrighted articles, not copyrights. Similarly, income from software-related support services was not considered FTS as the assessee did not make available technical knowledge to the recipients.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of belated payments of employee's contribution towards ESI and PF was not justified. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which held that payments made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the assessee failed to appear, prosecute the appeal, or rectify the numerous procedural defects despite proper service of notice.