Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of all the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of all the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of all the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of all the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) should be considered by the AO, referencing the Goetze (India) Ltd. case's applicability to ITAT. The Tribunal allowed the processing fee for capital assets as revenue expenditure, relying on the India Cements Ltd. case. The claim for bad debt was upheld as not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the purchase price and other expenditures related to the property. The claim made by the assessee was considered bona fide, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's attempt to file the appeal through a lawyer. The Tribunal restored the grounds of appeal to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the ITAT in prior appeals, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the ITAT in prior appeals, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of expenditure into capital and revenue is a debatable issue, and penalty cannot be levied on such debatable matters. Furthermore, the disallowance was ad-hoc and without basis, thus not warranting a penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which followed previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features in the facts presented by the Revenue compared to earlier years where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed costs of construction and improvement. Despite the claim of stolen documents, the assessee, as a co-owner, should have been able to obtain supporting evidence from co-owners or the bank from which a loan was allegedly taken.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC denying the exemption under Section 10(25) was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) and should have been done under Section 143(3). The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding immunity under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision as per law.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding immunity under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision as per law.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding immunity under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision as per law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which followed previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features in the facts presented by the Revenue compared to earlier years where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this rule.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not admitting additional evidence submitted by the assessee to explain the cash deposits, especially since the assessment was ex-parte. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessee as it was issued to an incorrect address. Consequently, the assessment proceedings under Section 147 were declared invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on accrued interest, stating it was not taxable in the year under consideration due to the real income theory and was offered in a subsequent year. It also upheld the deletion of additions on share application money as the source was explained by surrendered income. For business promotion and Diwali expenses, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance, finding no fallacy in the reasoning.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C was not leviable as the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on EDC payments. This was based on previous Tribunal rulings where it was held that such payments were not out of statutory or contractual liability and there was a bonafide belief that TDS was not required.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of expenditure into capital and revenue is a debatable issue, and penalty cannot be levied on such debatable matters. Furthermore, the disallowance was ad-hoc and without basis, thus not warranting a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the investments made in BARC were not for profit but to fulfill the assessee's objects, aligning with government policy. Therefore, these investments did not violate section 11(5) or 13(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that the AO's computation of disallowance under Section 14A was based on erroneous facts, as the assessee had already repaid its borrowings from the sale of shares before making further investments. Regarding the foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal followed the principle that if gains were taxed, losses should be allowed, especially since the net impact was revenue neutral.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed before the search and the bank account was already disclosed in the original return, the addition based on the bank statement found during the search was not sustainable as it was not based on incriminating material. The CIT(A) had also deleted a similar addition on this ground.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered clarificatory and not retrospective in altering the law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income. This is in line with established judicial precedents and the clarification provided by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of appeals and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of appeals and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of appeals and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendments by Finance Act, 2021 were considered clarificatory and not retrospective.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they no longer wished to pursue the litigation. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the issues, including the applicability of Section 2(15) and the disallowance of expenses, had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years by coordinate benches. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding the addition on account of profit on sale/redemption of investment was allowed in favor of the assessee, the penalty on that issue would fail. For the depreciation issue, which was set-aside to the AO, the Tribunal agreed that the penalty could not be sustained as the addition did not survive.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was being resolved under the VSV scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding the addition on account of profit on sale/redemption of investment was allowed in favor of the assessee, the penalty on that issue would fail. For the depreciation issue, which was set-aside to the AO, the Tribunal agreed that the penalty could not be sustained as the addition did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the notice for penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. A composite notice or a notice leaving blanks is not sustainable.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics, which ruled in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the AO was directed to allow the full 100% deduction under Section 80IC.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of interest payment by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. and also dismissed the disallowance under Section 14A by referring to the amendment to Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the addition for late deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions was not justified as the amounts were deposited before the filing of the return of income, and the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was not applicable retrospectively. The issue of GST non-deposit was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in most respects. Specifically, it directed the AO/TPO to calculate arm's length interest on loans to associated enterprises by considering credit ratings and specific LIBOR plus spread rates, often aligning with the CIT(A)'s reasonable orders.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses are revenue in nature, as they are incurred periodically to enhance sales and profit, not for enduring benefit. The CIT(A) correctly followed the Tribunal's previous decisions on similar matters.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in most respects. Specifically, it directed the AO/TPO to calculate arm's length interest on loans to associated enterprises by considering credit ratings and specific LIBOR plus spread rates, often aligning with the CIT(A)'s reasonable orders.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271C is not leviable for non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal found that TDS was not required on such payments, and therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in most respects. Specifically, it directed the AO/TPO to calculate arm's length interest on loans to associated enterprises by considering credit ratings and specific LIBOR plus spread rates, often aligning with the CIT(A)'s reasonable orders.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in most respects. Specifically, it directed the AO/TPO to calculate arm's length interest on loans to associated enterprises by considering credit ratings and specific LIBOR plus spread rates, often aligning with the CIT(A)'s reasonable orders.