Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that there was no legal requirement for the assessee to deduct tax at source on payments made to HUDA for EDC. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., which stated that belated payments of employee's PF and ESI are not to be treated as deemed income. The amendments by Finance Act, 2021 were also noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on disallowance under section 14A was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Revenue did not appeal. For the other two issues (DTAA and 80IA), the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case where the quantum additions were deleted, thus the penalty did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without application of mind and on incorrect facts, as the assessee had indeed filed the return. Therefore, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, making the appeal infructuous. The appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in discarding the assessee's valuation report and in adopting circle rates for property valuation. The AO should have considered the higher of the Rule 11UA valuation or the fair market value of underlying assets.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it reimbursed the parent company for ESOP expenses related to employees deputed to work for the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to factually verify the deputation of employees, the timing of payment, and the re-casting of financials.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made on account of late deposit, when such deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, was not justified. The amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that due to the changed factual position regarding additions after the quantum appeal, the penalty issue must be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer must provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The CIT(A) held that an order passed under Section 154 of the Act, which reopens proceedings by charging interest not previously charged, is not permissible. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal considered an application moved by the assessee's authorized representative. Based on the contents of this application, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, especially since similar expenses were allowed in preceding years. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's submissions before disposing of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of effective representation and to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The ITAT, noting the NCLT's approval of a Resolution Plan, restored the appeals and cross-objections to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues in accordance with the NCLT's order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 60,000 received from the wife's savings was believable given her status as a regular income-tax assessee. It also held that the Rs. 2,23,000 deposited during demonetization did not exceed the threshold limit specified by CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 for individuals without business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to royalty, interest on corporate guarantee, and interest on loans, finding them covered by earlier decisions or lacking merit. For additional claims regarding capital subsidy and ESOP expenses, the Tribunal admitted them and remanded the matters to the AO for adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to royalty, interest on corporate guarantee, and interest on loans, finding them covered by earlier decisions or lacking merit. For additional claims regarding capital subsidy and ESOP expenses, the Tribunal admitted them and remanded the matters to the AO for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the department failed to produce corroborative evidence. The assessee provided confirmations denying any investment, and the AO did not examine these. Reliance solely on loose sheets without further evidence is insufficient.
The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled that the payments received by the AE were not taxable in India as FIS under the India-USA DTAA, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) was unsustainable.
The ITAT, noting the NCLT's approval of a Resolution Plan, restored the appeals and cross-objections to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues in accordance with the NCLT's order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to royalty, interest on corporate guarantee, and interest on loans, finding them covered by earlier decisions or lacking merit. For additional claims regarding capital subsidy and ESOP expenses, the Tribunal admitted them and remanded the matters to the AO for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to gather specific material to rebut the assessee's submissions despite opportunities. The revenue accepted the assessee's income from contracts, making it unfair to deem the underlying purchases as bogus.
The Tribunal found the ad-hoc estimation of 12.5% net profit to be without basis and on the higher side. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 10% of gross contract receipts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income. It also affirmed that belated payment of employee's PF/ESIC is not to be treated as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a previous decision of the ITAT stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no expenses are claimed against exempt income. The Tribunal found no substance in the revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining expenses unrelated to the initial reasons. It also found that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the disallowances of legal/professional and business promotion expenses, as sufficient evidence was provided and disallowance solely on the basis of not generating immediate revenue was incorrect.
The ITAT restored the appeals and cross-objections to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues in accordance with the NCLT's order, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the applicability of MAT. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled that the payments received by the AE were not taxable in India as FIS under the India-USA DTAA, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated addition to 1% of the aggregate credits, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal found the AO's estimation of 8% to be excessive.
The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled that the payments received by the AE were not taxable in India as FIS under the India-USA DTAA, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to give clear findings regarding the terms of the partnership and supplementary deeds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that orders under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued by the revenue. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that orders under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were issued by the revenue. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a retrospective trademark license agreement, which significantly altered the nature of the transaction. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining expenses unrelated to the initial reasons. It also found that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the disallowances of legal/professional and business promotion expenses, as sufficient evidence was provided and disallowance solely on the basis of not generating immediate revenue was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the income from lease rent and packaging services was indeed business income, as the assessee continued its manufacturing activities. Consequently, proportionate disallowance of expenditure was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued was bad in law because it was a stereotyped notice, failing to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a retrospective trademark license agreement, which significantly altered the nature of the transaction. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the cash deposits before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). However, considering the assessee possesses such evidence, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to royalty, interest on corporate guarantee, and interest on loans, finding them covered by earlier decisions or lacking merit. For additional claims regarding capital subsidy and ESOP expenses, the Tribunal admitted them and remanded the matters to the AO for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable from April 1, 2021. Therefore, they do not apply to the assessment year in question. The deposit of employee's contribution was made within the time allowed under Section 43B, i.e., before the due date of filing the return of income.