Loading ITAT cases…
479 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 without conducting a proper inquiry. The CIT should have conducted the necessary inquiries himself rather than remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%, following its own previous decisions. It also allowed the provision for major maintenance, considering it in line with settled legal principles.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68 for AY 2009-10 as the creditors were genuine and subsequently discharged. The disallowance for car/telephone expenses for AY 2010-11 was upheld as reasonable. The addition under Section 41(1) for AY 2010-11 was deleted as the creditors had not ceased to exist.
The Tribunal held that the AO rightly reopened the assessment based on cogent information and the admission of the entry provider. The assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchases and substantiate claims of subsequent sales.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable when shares are issued by a venture capital undertaking to a venture capital fund, as per the proviso. It also held that professional fees paid for share valuation and monthly retainership are regular business expenses and not capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares does not amount to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of interest expenditure disallowance based on previous rulings and RBI end-use guidelines for borrowed funds. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance on investments to the AO, directing that it be calculated only on investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal allowed the addition for late deposit of EPF/ESIC contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The sponsorship fee issue was remanded for further examination. The disallowance of petty cash expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) due to the ill health of its director. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153A. The assessment order was quashed, and the addition was deleted.
The assessee subsequently filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of interest expenditure disallowance based on previous rulings and RBI end-use guidelines for borrowed funds. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance on investments to the AO, directing that it be calculated only on investments yielding exempt income.
The assessee subsequently filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the addition for late deposit of EPF/ESIC contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The sponsorship fee issue was remanded for further examination. The disallowance of petty cash expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee contended the appeals were filed within time before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee contended the appeals were filed within time before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee contended the appeals were filed within time before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The assessee's counsel stated that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and submitted the relevant form. Based on this concession, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the payment was for a limited right to use the brand name and logo for a specific period, not an acquisition of an enduring asset. Therefore, it should be treated as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if deemed necessary.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are distinct from rent and are governed by Section 194C, while lease rentals are governed by Section 194I. The AO was directed to re-compute CAM charges accordingly.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the salary was indeed paid from the cash loan received. The explanation of urgent salary payment was not considered a reasonable cause for accepting the loan in cash.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB) was partly allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the approval for the R&D facility, even if signed by an officer other than the Secretary, DSIR. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' as defined under Section 144C(15)(b) of the Act, as it was neither a foreign company nor was the variation a consequence of a Transfer Pricing Officer's order. Consequently, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C, rendering the final assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal also noted that the AO erred in relying on earlier assessment years' findings when the assessee had discontinued business operations.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C for AY 2006-07 was barred by limitation as the relevant date for calculating the six-year period was the date of receipt of documents by the assessee's AO, which fell outside the permissible period. Therefore, the assessment order was without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in refusing to consider additional grounds raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, as the rule does not mandate a written application. The matter was remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are distinct from rent and are governed by Section 194C, while lease rentals are governed by Section 194I. The AO was directed to re-compute CAM charges accordingly.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to sympathetically consider the delay and decide the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to sympathetically consider the delay and decide the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay constituted a sufficient reason. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB) was partly allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the approval for the R&D facility, even if signed by an officer other than the Secretary, DSIR. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order rendered the assessee's appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Electricity Duty collected by the assessee was on behalf of the State Government as an agent, and therefore, it did not constitute a sum payable by the assessee by way of tax or duty under Section 43B. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) erred in holding that no return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had informed the AO that the earlier return should be treated as the response. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the jurisdictional grounds afresh.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' PF & ESIC contributions is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It found no error in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A and the addition for prior period expenses, following the principle of consistency with prior rulings.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the first ground, deleting the addition made under Section 68 as the advances were proven to be genuine sale considerations. However, the Tribunal dismissed the second ground, upholding the disallowance of the deduction claimed for dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the customer's non-response to a section 133(6) notice should not lead to disbelieving the rejection of goods. The assessee had written off the amount in its books and settled accounts, indicating a business loss.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence and did not adjudicate on the ground challenging the reopening. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC cannot be denied if Form 10CCB is filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), even if filed after the return itself. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had already examined the issues and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations. The PCIT's opinion that the explanation was plausible but not conclusive was insufficient grounds for revision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of mutuality was decided by the Supreme Court. For the remaining computational errors, the Tribunal followed its own prior order for AY 2014-15 and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that there was no effective representation from the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after verifying the assessee's claim of gift.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-determine the fair market value of the shares after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal considered the petition filed by the assessee and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the Gratuity Scheme had been duly approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there was no loss of revenue. Therefore, the addition made by the PCIT was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced relevant documents to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The non-production of the two parties from whom purchases were made, given the total turnover and purchases, could not be the sole reason for the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's submissions and allow the deduction under Section 80P if found in order.