Loading ITAT cases…
529 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal held that while Section 14A applies to investments made for strategic control, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The issue was remitted to the AO for factual examination.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Both the assessee and the department agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal admitted the additional valuation reports as evidence. It set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Pr.CIT with a direction to pass a fresh order after considering these reports and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure cannot be treated as a separate international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. Following its own prior decisions and High Court pronouncements, the Tribunal deleted the entire AMP adjustment made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for maintaining an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), citing the negligence of the authorized representative as a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits was erroneous. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that payments to two parties were made by cheque with TDS deducted. For the remaining smaller amounts, considering the quantum, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable as the share application money was received in FY 2010-11, prior to the insertion of the said provision. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 2.57 crores, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the transactions were in the ordinary course of business for an NBFC. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Rs. 28 lakhs addition, noting that the CIT(A) had established the identity and creditworthiness of the lender, and that no addition was made in a subsequent reassessment on the same issue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circulars for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was not pressed and was dismissed as not maintainable.
The assessee filed Form No. 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Department agreed with the assessee's submission. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for the year in question was already completed before the search and had not abated. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, no additions could be made under section 153A. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals set by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings, finding a live link between the information received and the Assessing Officer's belief. The additions made under Sections 68 and 69C were also confirmed as justified.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) rejected the manager's affidavit because it was in his personal capacity and not an official bank confirmation. However, the Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities could have made their own inquiries and that similar cases involving the same manager were dropped.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the expenses were reimbursements and not payments to subcontractors attracting TDS provisions. The Tribunal relied on its own previous orders for the same assessee on identical issues.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the low tax effect and the fact that a co-ordinate bench had already dismissed a similar appeal filed by the department against the same order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should have been initiated under Section 271AAA, as the search occurred before the due date for filing the return. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed in the year the income is reported by the assessee, as per Section 199 r.w. Rule 37BA(3). Denial of credit in such a scenario is an apparent error rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, stating that the assessee failed to provide necessary documents and evidence to satisfy the conditions for registration. The assessee also failed to appear before the Tribunal despite multiple opportunities.
The Tribunal allowed a partial relief on the Section 14A disallowance, finding that the assessee's own funds exceeded the investment in mutual funds. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide a cogent explanation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's adjournment requests and material aspects of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses to the subsidiary was for business development and procurement of orders, supported by documentary evidence. It also noted that the India-UAE DTAA did not have an FTS clause, making Section 40(a)(i) inapplicable. The addition on account of income diversion was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses to the subsidiary was for business development and procurement of orders, supported by documentary evidence. It also noted that the India-UAE DTAA did not have an FTS clause, making Section 40(a)(i) inapplicable. The addition on account of income diversion was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the alleged error did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence to support the assessee's claim of disallowance in the preceding year, thus not warranting rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the AO's addition. The AO had estimated profit without rejecting the assessee's books of account, which was found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. It also noted that the order under Section 263 had already been quashed by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the share premium received from a Venture Capital Fund by a Venture Capital Undertaking is excluded from the purview of Section 56(2)(viib). It also ruled that the company international system expenses were revenue in nature and allowable, and the disallowance on telephone and internet expenses was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of ancestral agricultural land used by the assessee is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, as supported by the Assessing Officer's remand report. The grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be contrary to this report.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal agreed that serving liquor is not a charitable activity but found the CIT(E)'s order to be non-speaking as it did not properly adjudicate the assessee's reply. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. This was done considering the assessee's submission that liabilities were discharged and the CIT(A) had not decided on merits.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and allowed the assessee to approach the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing denovo. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, as evidenced by Form 5 issued by the designated authority.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 and 54F. The closure of the account without prior approval of the AO does not disentitle the assessee to the exemption, as the amounts were utilized for purchase of a house within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute had been resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, as evidenced by the issuance of Form 5. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that a sum of Rs. 1,64,611/- was added twice by the AO, once as job work expense disallowance and again as a creditor. Therefore, this amount was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper verification and opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to demonstrate the inclusion of excess stock.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence for its claims and expenses. The Assessing Officer was justified in making additions based on best judgment assessment due to non-compliance.