Loading ITAT cases…
474 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in making an adjustment for interest on receivables without factoring in payables. The Tribunal relied on Delhi High Court judgments that emphasized considering advance payments and the principle that working capital adjustments subsume adjustments for receivables.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the three companies (Accentia Technologies Ltd., Coral Hub Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd.) from the comparable list. The transfer pricing adjustment was directed to be determined afresh.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for land acquisition and electrification was part of the project cost as per the agreement with the client and was booked as turnover. Therefore, it was not a capital asset of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once the substantive addition is settled under the VSVS, the protective addition related to the same issue cannot be sustained. This is in line with CBDT clarifications regarding VSVS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance as the expenses were supported by agreements, invoices, and debit notes, and were considered revenue expenditure for business purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and precedents relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance as the expenses were supported by agreements, invoices, and debit notes, and were considered revenue expenditure for business purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and precedents relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. This was due to the AO invoking clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147, which was not applicable as an assessment under Section 143(3) had already been made. Furthermore, the reasons recorded for reopening did not specify the material facts that the assessee failed to disclose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a reference to the Valuation Officer before the AO, which was not considered. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the registration cannot be refused solely on the grounds of delay. The CIT(Exemptions) failed to examine the objects of the society. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found no basis for the ad hoc estimation of 40% of cash deposits as unexplained. Since the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the joint family ownership of land and agricultural operations, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made an ad hoc addition without verifying the assessee's claimed expenses like salary and ESIC/EPFO contributions. Considering the lower profit rate accepted in subsequent years under similar circumstances, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 8.3%.
The Tribunal restored the issue of whether software sales and subscription income constituted royalty to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was to be done in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and considering the specific licensing agreements. The issue of tax rate on interest income was also remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in disallowing the exemption claims. It was found that the audit report was filed before the completion of assessment, and the requirement to file it along with the return is directory, not mandatory.
The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the designated authority had issued Form-5. The tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption that payments could not be made after the marriage was not justified, especially considering village practices and the assessee's status as a retired government servant. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to conduct proper inquiries and provide reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) misunderstood the facts and that the Customs Duty was not paid in cash. The payment was made by Demand Draft, funded by a loan and cash sales, thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, acknowledging the mistake in dismissing the appeal based on low tax effect. However, upon further review, the Tribunal applied a later CBDT circular (No. 17/2019) which revised the monetary limit upwards, rendering the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO initiated them based on wrong facts and the Principal CIT granted approval mechanically without due application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of travel and conveyance expenses, finding no justification for the ad-hoc 20% disallowance. It also restored the issue of training fee income to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, as Section 44DA was not applicable for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal found that while a notice was sent to the new address, it was unclear if it was served and the assessment order was passed shortly after. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded back to the AO for verification and to allow the assessee to provide explanations.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSVS Act, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal, following a co-owner's case with identical facts, set aside the matter to the AO to verify the investment evidence. Since the AO subsequently accepted the claim after verifying the evidence, the deduction under Section 54F was allowed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal unilaterally and ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per the DTAA. Consequently, the issue of splitting business profits attributable to India does not arise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate the claim of gifts received from his father and brother. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were affirmed.
The Tribunal held that Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. and Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. were not comparable due to functional dissimilarity and abnormal profits, respectively. It also directed the TPO to recompute margins and working capital adjustments as per DRP directions.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, without any allegation of failure to disclose material facts, are void ab initio. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on outstanding TDS, holding that it was paid before the due date of filing the return as per Section 43B and Section 40(a)(ia). It also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on expenses, stating they were made without adverse material and were purely on conjecture.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. Relying on various case laws, it was observed that Section 68 is not applicable to sales receipts, and if sales are accepted, the corresponding receipts cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit without conclusive evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, noting that the issue was already adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a subsequent assessment year, declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the loan was recorded in the books of accounts as of March 31, 2015, and the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the director were not doubted, the addition under Section 68 was not justified. The delay in bank credit to the next financial year did not make the amount unexplained income for the current year.
The Tribunal held that if the assessment order leading to the additions is quashed, the consequential penalty also ceases to exist. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
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 under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following various High Court judgments. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment requests. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the appeal challenging the revisional action was rendered infructuous as no prejudice to the assessee subsisted. Therefore, it was not expedient to proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if the employees' contribution to PF/ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal found a bonafide reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) due to the non-service of the assessment order. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
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 under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn based on the assessee's letter.