Loading ITAT cases…
460 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of incentive on Focus products scheme was adjudicated as a capital receipt. Regarding duty drawback, the Tribunal found that the duty component embedded in purchases exceeded the duty drawback received, meaning there was no profit element from the incentive.
The Tribunal disagreed with the authorities below, stating that indexing an advance received and taxing the appreciation without legal basis is not permissible. The assessee had to pay a significant amount to settle the dispute and refund the advance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that training expenditure is allowable as an operational expense under Section 37(1) and that the write-off of rotables was correctly treated. It also agreed that no interest income accrued on the loan to the sick company, and the book profit adjustment was also correctly deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that training expenditure is allowable as an operational expense under Section 37(1) and that the write-off of rotables was correctly treated. It also agreed that no interest income accrued on the loan to the sick company, and the book profit adjustment was also correctly deleted.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case, held that the disallowance on account of consultancy charges was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had capitalized 50% of the expenses and incurred similar expenses in preceding years without dispute.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on a mere copy of an MOU without any other corroborating evidence. The assessee successfully demonstrated that the Rs. 25 lakhs invested was refunded by the builder through banking channels.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer needs to examine all facts regarding property purchase/construction and utilization of the amount.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was indeed passed beyond the time limit stipulated in Section 153(6) of the Act. Therefore, the entire assessment order was considered void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee paid for the entire property and offered the entire rent to tax, the full loss on the co-owned property is allowable. Regarding the vacant property, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,61,682/- based on the provisions of Sections 23 and 24.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of several companies as comparables, finding them functionally dissimilar or persistently loss-making. It also directed the inclusion of one comparable, Indiacom Ltd., subject to availability of quarterly financials for the relevant period.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order. The bank account in question was in the name of a company, not the assessee, and the deposits were made on specific dates during demonetization. The Tribunal found the CIT's action to be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee paid the entire amount, including stamp duty and registration fees, to the builder. However, the assessee failed to produce proof that these amounts were actually paid to the concerned authorities for registration. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved that the land sold was used for agricultural purposes and the land purchased was agricultural land, meeting the conditions for Section 54B exemption. Consequently, the addition for agricultural income was also treated as exempt.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the agreement between the assessee and M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to determine the real recipient of the monies. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for further examination.
The Tribunal found that the original revisionary order under Section 263 had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the non-existent revisionary order could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 for penalty was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the income from space rent was disputed and uncertain, no addition could be made. This decision followed previous orders of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's additional ground, quashing the assessment order. This was based on a prior ITAT decision that found the Section 153D approval, which included the assessee's name, to be granted without application of mind and thus invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the income from space rent was disputed and uncertain, no addition could be made. This decision followed previous orders of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment order was invalid due to the absence of a notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of a valid notice under Section 143(2) after the filing of a return in response to a notice under Section 148/153A is a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect is not curable under Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 153A was not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search that was not already disclosed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was affirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the business expenditure incurred by the assessee was allowable. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found a calculation mistake by the AO and concluded no further disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It was noted that the assessee had appeared on several dates and the CIT(A) had passed the order without granting a sufficient opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was only a commission agent and the deposits did not represent his turnover. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial in nature and did not fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial in nature and did not fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance. It followed previous ITAT and Delhi High Court rulings which held that Mitsui India was not a dependent agent PE of Mitsui Japan.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done because both the assessee's representative and the Revenue's representative agreed that the AO and CIT(A) had ignored evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses should be netted against prior period income, and provisions for maintenance etc. were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous year's orders. However, the disallowance of staff welfare expenses was sustained as no evidence of actual expenditure was provided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied foreign tax credit merely because the deductor has not filed a revised TDS return, as this is beyond the assessee's control. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the full foreign tax credit as per the revised claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied foreign tax credit merely because the deductor has not filed a revised TDS return, as this is beyond the assessee's control. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the full foreign tax credit as per the revised claim.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a laconic and non-speaking order. Both parties agreed that the order should be set aside and the matter remanded for a proper speaking order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal agreed that a company incurs expenses to maintain its legal existence. However, it found the 50% disallowance excessive and reduced it to 20% to cover potential revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay by focusing on legal citations rather than the facts presented by the assessee, a public sector bank. The reasons provided for the delay were considered plausible and should not have been dismissed.
The Tribunal held that making an addition under section 50C in an intimation under section 143(1) is beyond the scope of section 143(1) as it involves a debatable and controversial issue. Consequently, the addition was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated and substantiated the source of the cash deposits. The bank passbooks of the father and sister showed withdrawals that matched the deposits made by the assessee, and their identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions were established.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was not sustainable as the assessee had demonstrated the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not specified the section under which the addition was made, rendering it bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of salary expenses claimed under Section 10(14) due to lack of evidence for business purpose. It also sustained the addition for unexplained credit entries, finding the explanations for loans from a stranger and a company insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not valid. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and did not conduct necessary inquiries to justify the revision.
The Tribunal decided that the corpus donation received by the assessee society should be treated as a capital receipt, not revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial in nature and did not fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial in nature and did not fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that since there was no variation in the returned income, the AO was not required to issue a draft assessment order under section 144C. Consequently, the assessment order passed was beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 153(1) and thus barred by limitation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits. The Tribunal noted that the principal amount of Rs. 2,26,50,133/- had been settled by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in the case of M/s Xerox Modi Corporation Ltd. Furthermore, the net commission had been offered to tax by the assessee in its profit and loss account. Given these facts, the Tribunal held that no addition survived at that juncture. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee on ground No. 5, concerning the merits of the issue, was allowed. As the assessee received relief on merits, any adjudication on the other grounds would be academic, and hence, the Tribunal did not resort to them. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio as the AO did not possess any new tangible material after the original assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were found to be contrary to the facts on record, as the information relied upon was already available during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.