Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 11 of 12
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be devoid of application of mind and lacking in proper inquiry. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have independently examined the financials of the share applicant companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not clear about whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal found the penalty levy to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it found that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits and credit card payments, leading to unjustified additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the fee for technical services and thus entitled to treaty benefits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, which were based on email communications considered during the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is not sustainable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the VSV scheme. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act.
The Tribunal held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) for determining transfer pricing adjustments on AMP expenses was not acceptable, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and the Sony Ericsson case. The proposed adjustment of Rs. 36,93,24,653/- on the BLT approach was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is not met by an estimated disallowance, especially when it's substantially reduced. The penalty was deleted as the disallowance was based on deeming provisions and not on proven concealment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted that its previous order had quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, which was consequential to the CIT's order, was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable to expenditure recorded in earlier years and carried forward as an opening balance. Since the basis for the addition was flawed, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted.
The Tribunal noted that a Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in restricting the addition to the profit element of the alleged transaction, considering the negligible amount relative to turnover and lack of independent material. The addition was restricted to the profit element of Rs. 1,41,737/-.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted, the penalty did not survive. The ad hoc disallowance of business expenses was also set aside due to lack of specific justification and being based on surmises.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted, the penalty did not survive. The ad hoc disallowance of business expenses was also set aside due to lack of specific justification and being based on surmises.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when no exempt income is earned. It also held that the repair and maintenance expenses were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, following the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon the issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without substance.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and solely relied on investigation reports and an interim SEBI order. It noted that SEBI's final report had absolved the assessee and that previous tribunal decisions on similar facts had deleted additions, deeming the transactions genuine.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim, without positive evidence establishing concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's failure to provide information alone does not create a legal presumption of furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision, allowing credit for TDS on interest paid by banks to the assessee. The Revenue's grievance was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of the penalty notice, though not raised before the CIT(Appeals), goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not permissible, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were prospective, and adjustments under Section 143(1) have limited scope.
The Tribunal held that when additions are made on an estimated basis, it does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, following the Supreme Court's decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. and the Tribunal's own precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for prior period expenses based on the principle of consistency and prior ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Section 199(3) and Rule 37BA(3). The matter was restored to the AO for verification to avoid double claim.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(Appeals) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the receipt from the sale of software licenses is not taxable as royalty in India. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Engineering Analysis Center of Excellence Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal held that credit card commission is not covered under Section 194H as it's a facilitation charge, not agency commission. Staff recruitment expenses were below the TDS threshold, and legal charges were for stamp duty and registration, not professional services.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided an opportunity of being heard by the Pr.CIT, contrary to the assessee's claim. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders in similar cases had remitted the issue to the AO for determining the appropriate LIBOR plus markup, considering the AE's credit rating. Therefore, the Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that an affidavit alone, without any corroborating evidence, is insufficient to substantiate the claim for cost of improvement. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to provide factual basis for such claims.
The Tribunal held that credit card commission is not covered under Section 194H as it's a facilitation charge, not agency commission. Staff recruitment expenses were below the TDS threshold, and legal charges were for stamp duty and registration, not professional services.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made purely on an estimation basis without specifying which bills or vouchers were incomplete or missing. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty. Since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty levied on that basis could not stand.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue of set-off of short-term capital gains against brought forward capital losses to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's submission that a portion of the amount was netted off and offered for taxation, while the remainder was genuine security deposits, relying on a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the non-specification of the limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the penalty notice is fatal to the proceedings, as per a Bombay High Court decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the revenue from software sales is not royalty income, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents. Similarly, cloud service subscriptions were deemed not to be royalty, as they represent consideration for online access and data processing, not the use of copyrighted software or infrastructure.
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte, upholding the CIT(A)'s denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to late filing of return and excess expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the addition of accrued interest but did not interfere with the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the revenue from software sales is not royalty income, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents. Similarly, cloud service subscriptions were deemed not to be royalty, as they represent consideration for online access and data processing, not the use of copyrighted software or infrastructure.