Loading ITAT cases…
504 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for subscription fees and payments to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd. by following its own prior decisions. Similarly, disallowances related to remuneration to partners and expenses not paid in the relevant financial year were also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous rulings.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. For the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the dismissal was subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It noted that the NCLT order leads to the extinguishment of liabilities owed to the Central Government.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed in the original proceedings would not survive because the underlying additions were set aside. However, it clarified that the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings in the remand proceedings if warranted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without proper hearing. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its claims before the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessee's ground of appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the disallowance of payments to retired partners was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal followed this precedent, directing the deletion of the addition.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Subsidy and Excise Duty incentive were capital receipts and not linked to the cost of acquisition of assets, thus depreciation could not be denied. The Debenture redemption reserve was also treated appropriately by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a condition for the fifth appeal that it could be reinstituted if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme did not resolve the dispute.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. For the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the dismissal was subject to the condition that the assessee could seek reinstitution if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. For the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the dismissal was subject to the condition that the assessee could seek reinstitution if the dispute was not resolved.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. For the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the dismissal was subject to the condition that the assessee could seek reinstitution if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal set aside the addition on account of bank deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's contention that the FDRs were made from earlier year's deposits. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80C based on the provided certificate.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the assessee was given reasonable opportunities to defend themselves but failed to appear. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the assessee was given reasonable opportunities to defend themselves but failed to appear. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the assessee was given reasonable opportunities to defend themselves but failed to appear. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to EPF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted, even if it's deposited after the statutory due date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by passing an ex parte order without deciding on merits and also violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty does not survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Subsidy and Excise Duty incentive were capital receipts and not linked to the cost of acquisition of assets, thus not requiring reduction from depreciation. The Debenture redemption Reserve was also treated appropriately by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Subsidy and Excise Duty incentive were capital receipts and not linked to the cost of acquisition of assets, thus depreciation could not be denied. The Debenture redemption reserve was also treated appropriately by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Subsidy and Excise Duty incentive were capital receipts and not linked to the cost of acquisition of assets, thus depreciation could not be denied. The Debenture redemption reserve was also treated appropriately by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Sales Tax Subsidy and Excise Duty incentive were capital receipts and not linked to the cost of acquisition of assets, thus depreciation could not be denied. The Debenture redemption reserve was also treated appropriately by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the structures were temporary, all necessary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued without proper application of mind and without examining the return of income, rendering the assessment order invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued mechanically on the same date the return was filed, without proper application of mind and examination of the return. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the write-off of advertisement receipts was due to a failure to provide agreed-upon sites, making it a revenue adjustment. Legal expenses were also deemed revenue expenditure, and depreciation claims were allowed as per the written down value method.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(vi) was beyond its purview as the income was already offered to tax. The issue of whether it should be taxed as capital gains or income from other sources is debatable and cannot be decided under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the sale of software licenses for end-user use does not constitute royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA, especially considering the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the DTAA provisions, being more beneficial, override the domestic law.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's application to the AO for fresh issuance of a demand notice under Section 156A of the Income-tax Act, which was pending.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach erroneous for not properly examining the fund flow and not calling for a remand report. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have afforded adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee and dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether 'ready to use' or 'put to use' is sufficient for depreciation is debatable. Therefore, the AO erred in rectifying the assessment under Section 154 after the original assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal held that an unsecured loan cannot be considered a trading liability, and therefore, Section 41(1) was wrongly invoked. Since the foundation of the addition was shaky, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on issues unrelated to the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, unless those original issues are first addressed. The Tribunal referred to High Court and Supreme Court judgments supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software licenses for end-user use does not constitute royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA, especially considering the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the DTAA provisions, being more beneficial, override the domestic law.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, no penalty should be levied under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, no penalty should be levied under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, no penalty should be levied under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the assessee had not intimated a change of address. However, due to the ex parte assessment and the assessee's claim of withdrawals and source of funds, the quantum addition was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the assessee had not intimated a change of address. However, due to the ex parte assessment and the assessee's claim of withdrawals and source of funds, the quantum addition was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, as evidenced by Form 5 issued by the Designated Authority. Therefore, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee failed to provide any rebuttal or contrary material to dispute the incriminating evidence found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case (Indraprastha Cancer Society). The High Court had held that charitable institutions are eligible for depreciation, distinguishing previous rulings that disallowed it due to double deduction.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the structures were temporary, all necessary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment was not sustainable in law as it failed to issue a notice to the assessee as required by Section 143(1)(a). Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not apply their mind to the merits of the case, leading to a non-application of mind in the order.