Loading ITAT cases…
504 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits as not pressed. For the expenses and sundry creditors, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and deleted the additions, finding that the expenses were incurred on behalf of RIL and reimbursed.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's calculation of disallowance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 13,31,414/-.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanation regarding cash withdrawals and the correct contractual receipts as per Form 26AS. The additions were deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no fallacy in their reasoning regarding the addition of 15% of sales receipts as income. The Tribunal also noted that a co-ordinate bench had dismissed the assessee's appeal on identical facts for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The assessee was directed to furnish an affidavit and corroborative evidence to prove the income was offered under the correct PAN and TDS was claimed only by the entity with the correct PAN.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was found to be bad in law by the Tribunal itself, the penalty levied based on that assessment order should also fall. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee after the liquidation order and appointment of an official liquidator were not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash credits in question were not related to the statements of the individuals who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and documentation for these credits.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's error was considered a bona fide mistake, especially since it resulted in a loss and no tax advantage was gained.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is leviable only when there is an enabling provision in Section 200A, which was introduced effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of fee prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was too harsh in dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was done without proper application of mind, as the AO did not issue notice to the other joint account holder (the assessee's wife). The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to verify the assessee's claim regarding the joint account.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the AO had jurisdiction under Section 154 was not legally sustainable because the ITAT had already passed an order granting relief. The Tribunal noted that the AO would naturally give effect to the ITAT order, and the assessee would receive the necessary relief.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A was invalid. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessees.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessees.
The tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment and the additions made under Section 68 for share capital/premium and disallowed commission. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that two of the comparable companies used by the TPO were not comparable to the assessee, as previously decided in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the arm's length price and allowed the bad debt claim based on settled law.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction before rejecting the assessee's suo moto disallowance. The disallowance under Section 115JB was also directed to be decided in light of a Special Bench ruling.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This was based on the assessee being in government service and frequently transferred, and no undue advantage being gained by the delay.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the issue after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that payments to retired partners were a diversion of income by overriding title and not an application of income. The subscription fees paid to the global network were for business necessity and international cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contributions to ESI, PF, and LWF, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, are eligible for deduction. The delay in depositing these amounts beyond the statutory due dates, but before the return filing deadline, does not warrant disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee for CRM services do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The customers only use the services and do not acquire any rights to the underlying software or technology.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had received Form-5. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 269SS, which included 'any specified sum' (covering advances for immovable property), was effective from June 1, 2015, and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2013-14, the provisions of Section 269SS did not apply to cash advances.
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 upheld the Commissioner's deletion of the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It agreed that the DCF method, if based on scientific projections and supported by data, should be accepted for share valuation, and actual results at a later date do not invalidate the initial valuation.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee may not have informed the AO about the change of address, imposing penalty for each non-compliance was excessive. The penalty should be levied only for the first default, considering the same nature of default.
The Tribunal held that payments to retired partners were a diversion of income by overriding title and not an application of income. The subscription fees paid to the global network were for business necessity and international cooperation.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C(1) mandates a draft assessment order for eligible assessees when the AO proposes prejudicial variations to income after October 1, 2009. The AO's failure to follow this procedure, especially after a TPO reference, rendered the assessment order void ab initio.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
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 delayed deposit.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merit. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C(1) mandates a draft assessment order for eligible assessees when the AO proposes prejudicial variations to income after October 1, 2009. The AO's failure to follow this procedure, especially after a TPO reference, rendered the assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of low household withdrawals cannot be sustained as there was no finding by the Assessing Officer regarding expenditure incurred by the assessee. The addition was made purely on presumption.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from support services and reimbursement of training expenses are not in the nature of FIS under the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, these amounts are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal is hearing four appeals from the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s orders. The central grievance in all these appeals concerns the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding disallowances under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that since the assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed before the search, and no incriminating material was found, additions under Section 153A were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned, following the Delhi High Court's decision. It also held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the World Trade Centre/Tower, following a previous High Court ruling on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned, following the Delhi High Court's decision. It also held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the World Trade Centre/Tower, following a previous High Court ruling on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries, including recording statements of loan parties under Section 131, and had applied his mind to the facts. The PCIT's higher standard of examination did not automatically render the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following Supreme Court decisions. It also ruled that cloud services subscription fees are not royalty, as they represent consideration for online access and data processing, not the use of patents or copyrights.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from support services and reimbursement of training expenses are not in the nature of FIS under the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, these amounts are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for late deposit of employees' PF/ESIC contributions was not justified as the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.